Date: 20001013
Docket: IMM-3291-00
BETWEEN:
PERMAL BONGMAN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR ORDER
NADON J.
[1] On September 5, 2000, I denied the applicant's motion for a stay of execution of a removal order made against him. These are the reasons for my order.
[2] The applicant, a citizen of Malaysia, came to Canada on February 22, 1990, and claimed refugee status. His refugee claim was refused in 1991 and he did not seek leave of this Court to commence judicial review proceedings. At paragraph 2 of his affidavit dated August 28, 2000, the applicant states:
| [...] In 1991 my refugee claim was refused. I did not take any further action in respect of this claim. I remained afraid about returning to Malaysia and although I knew that I was required to leave Canada, I just remained and went "underground" in the sense that I did not report to Immigration officials, but continued to live and work in Canada. |
[3] In August 1999, the applicant applied for permanent residence in Canada on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate reasons, and on September 15, 1999, he voluntarily reported to Immigration officials in Toronto. The applicant was interviewed in regard to his application on January 21, 2000, and on June 9, 2000, his application was refused. On June 23, 2000, the applicant filed an application for leave and for judicial review of the June 9, 2000, decision. No decision has yet been taken in regard to his leave application.
[4] On August 22, 2000, the applicant was informed by Immigration officials that he would be removed from Canada on September 5, 2000. The applicant is seeking an order staying the execution of the removal order.
[5] In my view, the applicant has not shown that irreparable harm will result if his motion is denied. The evidence adduced by the applicant in support of his assertion that he will suffer irreparable harm is, in my view, insufficient. For example, the applicant states that if he has to leave Canada, there is a serious possibility that the business in which he is a partner, Hart's Restaurant in Toronto, will fail. I have carefully reviewed the evidence and save for the applicant's assertion, there is absolutely no evidence to support his contention that the business will likely fail.
[6] With respect to the balance of convenience, it is my view that this is a case where the respondent's duty to execute, as soon as reasonably practicable, the removal order made against the applicant should prevail over any inconvenience which the applicant might suffer. The applicant, in my view, should not be rewarded for his disappearing act. It should be recalled that the applicant went "underground" in 1991 and then voluntarily reported to Immigration officials on September 15, 1999, after having made his application for permanent residence in August 1999. In these circumstances, it seems to me that convenience necessarily lies in favour of the respondent.
[7] For these reasons, the applicant's motion for a stay of execution of the removal order was denied.
Marc Nadon
JUDGE
O T T A W A, Ontario
October 13, 2000.