Joarder v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Source text
Joarder v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2006-02-20 Neutral citation 2006 FC 230 File numbers IMM-935-06 Decision Content Date: 20060220 Docket: IMM-935-06 Citation: 2006 FC 230 Toronto, Ontario, February 20, 2006 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes BETWEEN: MAMUN HOSSAIN JOARDER SONALI AFROZ and MAHIYA NASRIN Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1] The Applicant's are facing deportation from Canada to the United Stateson February 21, 2006. The underlying application for judicial review seeks to set aside the decision of a removal officer who declined to defer removal until the Applicants' humanitarian and compassionate (H & C) application has been determined. That application has been outstanding since October, 2004 and recently the Respondent requested further information in support of that request for landing. At the same time the Respondent is seeking to deport the Applicants. Caught up in the process is a two year old Canadian born child and his seven year old Bangladesh born sister. [2] I am, of course, required to apply the tripartite test from Toth v. Canada (1988), 86 NR 302. [3] I find that a serious issue has been raised by the material before me. Although the discretion of a removal officer is quite limited there is a requirement that the immediate interests of affected children be treated fairly and with sensitivity at this stage…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Joarder v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2006-02-20 Neutral citation 2006 FC 230 File numbers IMM-935-06 Decision Content Date: 20060220 Docket: IMM-935-06 Citation: 2006 FC 230 Toronto, Ontario, February 20, 2006 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes BETWEEN: MAMUN HOSSAIN JOARDER SONALI AFROZ and MAHIYA NASRIN Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1] The Applicant's are facing deportation from Canada to the United Stateson February 21, 2006. The underlying application for judicial review seeks to set aside the decision of a removal officer who declined to defer removal until the Applicants' humanitarian and compassionate (H & C) application has been determined. That application has been outstanding since October, 2004 and recently the Respondent requested further information in support of that request for landing. At the same time the Respondent is seeking to deport the Applicants. Caught up in the process is a two year old Canadian born child and his seven year old Bangladesh born sister. [2] I am, of course, required to apply the tripartite test from Toth v. Canada (1988), 86 NR 302. [3] I find that a serious issue has been raised by the material before me. Although the discretion of a removal officer is quite limited there is a requirement that the immediate interests of affected children be treated fairly and with sensitivity at this stage of the immigration process. I am not convinced that the interests of these two young children were afforded the degree of consideration required. The officer referred to the absence of any concern about schooling for the youngest child but said nothing whatsoever about the fact that the older child will be removed from school by this deportation. Furthermore, the notes supporting the decision state that the two year old child, is a Canadian citizen, therefore is not being removed from Canada [4] Although in simplistic legal terms this may be correct, the de facto consequence of this decision is to remove a Canadian citizen from the country. It is arguable that this is not the degree of sensitivity to the interests of the child that is required. [5] On the issue of irreparable harm I think it noteworthy that this deportation will disrupt the family unit and their deep integration into the community (including employment, volunteering and schooling). This family has integrated very effectively and, once again, the interests of the two young children are, to my mind, sufficient to take this consideration beyond the more generic types of hardship that typically do not support a stay. [6] While it is true that the existence of an outstanding H & C application is not, by itself, a basis for deferring a removal, the fact that this one has been outstanding for l6 months and is under active consideration lends support to the Applicant's claim to interim relief at least with respect to the balance of convenience. ORDER THIS COURT ORDERS that the Applicants' pending deportations from Canada are hereby stayed until their underlying application for leave for judicial review is decided and, if leave is granted, until the application is finally determined on the merits. "R.L. Barnes" JUDGE FEDERAL COURT Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record DOCKET: IMM-935-06 STYLE OF CAUSE: MAMUN HOSSAIN JOARDER ET AL Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 20, 2006 PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: BARNES J. DATED: FEBRUARY 20, 2006 APPEARANCES BY: John Guoba FOR THE APPLICANT Tamrat Gebeyehu FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: John Guoba Barrister & Solicitor Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT John H. Sims Q.C Deputy Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ont. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
Klouvi c. Canada (Procureur général)
2024 CAF 80