Toronto, Ontario, April 26, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
BETWEEN:
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The applicant is a citizen of Grenada who claims that she came to Canada in 1994 to escape sexual and physical abuse. She never made a refugee claim in Canada. However, she made an application for landing on Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds in 1998 and a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) application in 2005, both of which were refused. The applicant who is scheduled to leave Canada on May 6, 2006, hereby seeks a stay of removal until her application to have the PRRA decision judicially reviewed is determined.
Serious Issue
[2] The applicant first argues that the PRRA Officer failed to give Reasons explaining how she considered the best interests of her minor child. In my view, this argument is without merit. First, it has been established that generally in a PRRA assessment based on the factors set out in section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act the Officer only considers the harm that may occur to "the person himself", not to other people (see Sherzady v. M.C.I., 2005 FC 516, at paras. 15-16, 20, Kawtharani v. M.C.I., 2006 FC 162, at para. 26, Martinez v. M.C.I. 2005 FC 1660, at paras. 8, 12, 16). Furthermore, I am of the view that the PRRA Officer's consideration of the best interests of the applicant's minor child went beyond what was required, in the circumstances, and that her following reasons in that regard adequately explain her decision:
I have also reviewed and considered country conditions applicable to the applicant using the most recently published, publicly accessible, credible sources cited throughout these notes and have taken the best interests of the applicant's child in mind when assessing their risk of return to Grenada.
....
The Government is reportedly committed to children's rights and welfare.
....
I also find that there is insufficient evidence that state protection would not be available to her and her daughter.
....
The applicant has provided insufficient evidence that she or her child would be subjected personally to a risk to life or a risk of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment.
[3] The second serious issue alleged by the applicant is with respect of the assessment made by the PRRA Officer of the evidence presented regarding the risks faced in Grenada. Upon reviewing the evidence, I find no evidence of any serious, personalised risk facing either the applicant or her daughter. The economic challenges described by the applicant would be faced by virtually all citizens of Grenada and the sexual assaults she experienced occurred more than 20 years ago. Furthermore, the reasonableness of the PRRA Officer's assertion that the applicant could avail herself of a shelter in Grenada raises no serious issue.
Irreparable Harm and Balance of Convenience
[4] It flows from the above reasons that the applicant has totally failed to show irreparable harm, i.e. harm that is not purely speculative and that the balance of convenience favours the Minister who has the statutory duty to enforce the removal order as soon as is reasonably practicable (subsection 48(2) or the IRPA).
Conclusion
[5] Consequently, the extra ordinary equitable relief sought is denied.
ORDER
The applicant's motion for a stay of removal is dismissed.
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-1884-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: MARY HELENA REDHEAD
v. THE MINSITER OF CITIZENSHIP &
IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: April 24, 2006
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: Pinard, J.
APPEARANCES BY:
Mr. Howard Borenstein
Ms. Sheri Price FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. David Cranton FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Borenstein, Dotsikas, Price
Toronto, ON FOR THE APPLICANT
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT