Date: 20210621
Docket: IMM-4131-21
Citation: 2021 FC 640
Ottawa, Ontario, June 21, 2021
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Lafrenière
BETWEEN:
MARVIN FABIAN BYRD
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondent
ORDER
UPON URGENT MOTION by the Applicant for a stay of the Applicant’s removal, currently scheduled to take place on June 23, 2021 at 00:20 (20 minutes past midnight), pursuant to section 18.2 of the Federal Courts Act, until such time as the Applicant’s application for leave and judicial review is considered and finally determined;
AND UPON reading the Applicant’s motion record and correspondence from the Respondent dated June 20, 2021;
The Applicant is scheduled to be removed from Canada to Jamaica shortly after midnight on June 23, 2021. He received his removal instructions on May 26, 2021.
The deferral request was submitted to Canada Border Services Agency [CBSA] on June 15, 2021. CBSA denied the deferral request on June 16, 2021.
The present motion for a stay of the Applicant’s motion was filed on June 18, 2021.
The Respondent submits that the Court should decline to hear the Applicant’s stay motion given its extreme lateness and its failure to comply with the Court’s February 18, 2021, Practice Guidelines for Urgent Stay Motions for Removals from Canada [Guidelines].
For the following reasons, I agree with the Respondent that the motion should not be entertained on such short notice. In any event, the Court need not wait for a responding motion before disposing of a matter: ViiV Healthcare Company v. Gilead Sciences Canada, Inc., 2021 FCA 122 at par. 23. On the sole basis of the motion material filed by the Applicant, I am not inclined to grant the motion.
The Guidelines and Rule 362(1) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 provide that parties must serve and file motions for stays of removal at least three (3) clear business days in advance of the hearing date. Alternatively, an applicant must provide a letter to the Court and the respondent containing a satisfactory explanation for any delay in bringing on the motion justifying the need for urgency. No such explanation has been provided by the Applicant.
The Applicant’s Rule 35 letter dated June 19, 2021 requesting an immediate telephone conference baldly states that the matter is of extreme urgency.
I note from reading the Applicant’s affidavit in support of the motion that he retained new counsel on June 4, 2021. The Applicant was asked to obtain further records relating to his military service and letters from his former colleagues in his unit in support of a deferral request letter. However, the Applicant was required to provide compelling and unavoidable circumstances to explain his three-week delay in submitting the deferral request.
As a result of the Applicant’s delay, the Respondent’s ability to respond to the Applicant’s motion has been severely prejudiced.
Moreover, the Applicant has had three full weeks’ notice of his scheduled removal, but did not advise the Court or the Respondent of his intention to bring a stay motion until after-hours on a Friday, leaving the Respondent with only one full business day to prepare a response.
In any event, the Applicant’s motion materials do not disclose that this motion for a stay of removal satisfies all three prongs of the test in Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 1988 CanLII 1420 (FCA), 86 NR 302 (FCA). The test is a conjunctive one and the Applicant has not established that he faces irreparable harm in the event the stay is not granted or that the balance of convenience lies in his favour.
First, the Applicant claims he would face a risk to his life or to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if he returns to Jamaica because he was a member of the Jamaican Defence Force involved in the interdiction of drug smuggling. According to the Applicant, after participating in two major drug busts in 2011, he had several encounters with strangers who threatened his life.
I note, however, from reading the deferral officer’s decision that this very same risk was assessed by a Pre-Removal Assessment [PRRA] officer and that a negative PRRA decision was rendered on March 2, 2018. The PRRA officer specifically noted that the Applicant had provided little evidence to support his risk allegations and that state protection was available to him in Jamaica.
Second, the Applicant was reported for serious criminality on November 4, 2020 and a deportation order was issued under section 36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] on January 5, 2021. Subsection 48(2) of IRPA imposes a duty on the Respondent to enforce a removal order as soon as is reasonably practicable.
The Federal Court of Appeal has confirmed that in considering the balance of convenience the public interest must be taken into consideration. It has also confirmed that the fact that an applicant has exercised a number of remedies since arriving in Canada, and all have been unsuccessful, may be taken into consideration in determining the balance of convenience.
For the above reasons, the Applicant’s motion is dismissed.
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
The motion is dismissed.
Blank
"Roger R. Lafreniѐre"
Blank
Judge