Toronto, Ontario, August 28, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
BETWEEN:
and
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
[1] The Applicant, Mr. Jagnaraine Singh, has filed a motion for a stay of execution of the removal order against him.
[2] The Court has considered all the evidence to determine the matter.
BACKGROUND
[3] Mr. Singh’s stated intention was to establish permanent residency in Canada but he was not in possession of an immigrant visa before he arrived in Canada. Mr. Singh made a claim for refugee protection on August 16, 2001.
[4] He was issued a departure order now deemed to be a Deportation order as no certificate of departure was issued.
[5] Married in 2003.
[6] 16DEC2003 and 14SEP2004: hearings of Mr. Singh’s claim for Refugee Protection.
[7] 09FEB2005: Found not to be a Convention Refugee and excluded pursuant to Article 1F(A) of the Refugee Convention by the Immigration and Refugee Board.
[8] 15FEB2005; Refugee Protection Division (RPD) member found that there were serious reasons for considering that Mr. Singh has been complicit in crimes against humanity, namely, torture and other inhumane acts perpetrated by the Guyanese police between 1998 and 2001 (a police force which Mr. Singh had voluntarily joined eighteen years prior to his departure).
[9] 10MAR2005: Filed an application for leave for judicial review of the negative RDP decision.
[10] 19OCT2005: Leave for judicial review of the negative RPD decision was dismissed.
[11] 21OCT2005: Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) was initiated.
[12] 06FEB2006: Negative PRRA results.
[13] 09JUN2006: Application for Permanent Residence as a member of the Spouse or Common-Law partner in Canada Class was refused. It is recognized that Mr. Singh’s common law wife and his son, both have a support system in Canada to assist them; this is in addition to having each other.
[14] The balance of any inconvenience which Mr. Singh may suffer as a result of his departure does not outweigh the public interest which the Respondent seeks to maintain.
[15] Paragraph 10 of Ramratran v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2006 FC 377, [2007] F.C.J. No. 472 (QL):
The test for granting a stay is well established. The Applicants must establish:
(1) That there is a serious question to be tried;
(2) That the moving party would, unless the injunction is granted, suffer irreparable harm; and
(3) That the balance of convenience favours the moving party.
Toth v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration). (1988), 86 N.R. 302 (F.C.A.); RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (A.G.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311
[16] Since the balance favours the Respondent, therefore the motion for stay of removal is dismissed.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the stay of removal be dismissed.
“Michael M. J. Shore”
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4615-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: JAGNARAINE SINGH
v. THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: August 28, 2006
APPEARANCES:
|
Mr. Robert I. Blanshay
|
|
|
Ms. Mielka Visnic
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
ROBERT I. BLANSHAY Toronto, Ontario
|
|
|
JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|