Date: 19981201
Docket: IMM-6123-98
BETWEEN:
MARIA ALONA ALONZO
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
(Given orally from the bench in Ottawa, Ontario,
by teleconference call, on November 30, 1998)
BLAIS J.
[1] The motion is for a stay of the execution of a deportation order issued against the applicant and scheduled to be executed on November 30, 1998 at 9:15 p.m. today.
[2] The grounds for the motion are that the applicant is due to appear in Provincial Court on December 11, 1998 on charges of theft under $5,000.00.
[3] The Court has received the confirmation that the criminal charge against the applicant has been withdrawn and she is not required anymore to appear in Provincial Court on December 11, 1998.
[4] The applicant"s counsel referred to paragraph 6 and 7 of the notice of motion to raise the fact that the applicant is also scheduled to be interviewed by Immigration Canada in order to assess the merits of an application for landing on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, on Monday, December 7, 1998.
[5] The defendant"s counsel mentioned that this interview could be done at the Canadian High Commission in Manilla, Philippines, and that he will make sure that it will be done.
[6] I understand, from the documents before me, that the applicant"s child will be deported with her mother.
[7] Upon the fact that the applicant is aware that the deportation order was issued in May and could be executed anytime, the execution of that order is no surprise. The applicant has waited until today to challenge the decision and to bring a motion for a stay, it is the very last minute.
[8] As mentioned in Younge v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) decision, Court File IMM-2566-96, Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, this is a very similar case, and I quote Justice Richard:
She submitted an application for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian grounds and is awaiting the result of this application. On December 2, 1996, she received a letter from the Removal Unit directing her to report for removal from Canada to Jamaica on January 6, 1997. She claims that she should be allowed to remain in Canada until her application is processed and determined. She has one Canadian-born child.
(...)
The validity of the departure order is not a serious issue.
(...)
The displacement occasioned by her removal may result in hardship but it does not establish irreparable harm.
[9] The applicant has not demonstrated that there is a serious issue.
[10] The applicant has not established that there is irreparable harm.
[11] I do not think it is necessary to consider the balance of convenience.
[12] For these reasons, the application for a stay of the execution for the deportation order is dismissed.
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
December 1, 1998