Date: 20001201
Docket: IMM-6126-00
BETWEEN:
MUHAMMAD ILYAS
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is a motion for a stay of the removal of the applicant currently scheduled for December 3, 2000.
[2] At the beginning of the hearing, I was asked by the applicant to allow filing of an amended application for leave and for judicial review which I was provided a copy at the beginning of the hearing.
[3] First of all, the application for leave and for judicial review that was filed on November 28, 2000, reads:
| The Applicant seeks leave of the Court to commence an application for Judicial Review of a decision made by Immigration Expulsions Officer Greg Bennett of the Greater Toronto Enforcement Centre in Mississauga, Ontario, to execute a removal against the applicant on Saturday, December 3, 2000. |
[4] At the beginning of the hearing, I am asked to contemplate an amended application for leave and for judicial review that reads:
| The Applicant seeks leave of the Court to commence an application for Judicial Review of the removal order made Immigration Removals Officer, Gord Morris of the Greater Toronto enforcement Centre in Mississauga, Ontario, and the decision to execute that removal against the applicant on Saturday, December 3, 2000. |
[5] I carefully reviewed the sequence of events that happened over the last few weeks.
[6] To get back only on a few of them, the applicant was served with a direction to report on November 3, 2000. His removal was scheduled for November 10, 2000. The applicant failed to appear for his removal.
[7] An arrest warrant was issued for the applicant on November 21, 2000 and the immigration officials arrested the applicant on November 23, 2000. On the same day, the applicant also received a direction to report informing him that his removal was scheduled for December 3, 2000.
[8] Counsel for the respondent suggests that based on a direction by Justice McGillis, in Isidoro Araujo, IMM-3660-97, dated August 27, 1997, this Court should not even entertain this particular motion. Justice McGillis said:
| The Court routinely hears, on an urgent basis, applications to stay the execution of deportation orders. However, in the present case, the applicant failed to institute his proceedings in a timely manner, and he chose to disobey a valid deportation order. As a result, he is in Canada unlawfully and a warrant is outstanding for his arrest. In the circumstances, the applicant cannot request the Court to exercise its equitable jurisdiction to stay the order that he has chosen to disobey. The request for an urgent hearing is therefore denied. |
[9] Counsel for the respondent suggests that the applicant could have presented a motion for a stay between November 3 and November 10, 2000, to challenge the direction to report that was legally issued.
[10] As in the case decided by Justice McGillis, the applicant chose not to file a motion to stay during that period of time and decided to disobey a valid deportation order.
[11] If the Court decides today to hear the motion for a stay of the second direction to report that was issued on November 23, 2000, it would just reward someone that chose to disobey a valid deportation order.
[12] In my view, the preliminary objection by counsel for the respondent is valid and the request for an urgent hearing of this case is denied. Therefore, I will not address the arguments provided for the stay.
[13] Regarding the motion to amend the application for leave and for judicial review that was made verbally, this motion is also denied and should be presented to the Court through a motion in writing.
Pierre Blais
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
December 1, 2000