Date: 20000316
Docket: IMM-29-00
BETWEEN:
ALFONSO MALLIA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] I have heard on an urgent basis this motion for a stay by teleconference on March 16, 2000, at 2:00 p.m.
[2] The applicant has made an honest effort but, in my view, the application for a stay should be rejected.
[3] Even though one could suggest that there is an arguable case, the applicant failed to demonstrate an irreparable harm.
[4] The applicant has a serious criminal record in the United States and suggests that, if he is deported to Italy, he will suffer an irreparable harm.
[5] In Stampp v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] F.C.J. No. 261, Justice Nadon said:
| What the Applicant has demonstrated is possible hardship if he were removed from Canada. Hardship, however, does not constitute irreparable harm. Further, the fact that Ms. Stephens will be deprived of the Applicant"s financial contribution does not constitute, in my view, irreparable harm. In Calderon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 92 F.T.R. 107 (F.C.T.D.) Mrs. Justice Simpson expressed her view of the meaning of irreparable harm as follows: |
| In Kerrutt v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1992), 53 F.T.R. 93 (F.C.T.D.), Mr. Justice Mackay concluded that, for the purposes of a stay application, irreparable harm implies the serious likelihood of jeopardy to an applicant"s life or safety. This is a very strict test and I accept its premise that irreparable harm must be very grave and more than the unfortunate hardship associated with the breakup or relocation of the family. |
| I agree entirely with Simpson J. that irreparable harm is "more than the unfortunate hardship associated with the breakup or relocation of the family". The Applicant did not demonstrate that irreparable harm would follow if he were removed from Canada. |
[6] In my view, the applicant will not suffer irreparable harm if he is deported to Italy, and given the criminal record of the applicant, the balance of convenience favours the respondent.
[7] The application for a stay is dismissed.
Pierre Blais Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
March 16, 2000