Sahota v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Sahota v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2002-03-22
Neutral citation
2002 FCT 331
File numbers
IMM-1270-02
Notes
Digest
Decision Content
Date: 20020322
Docket: IMM-1270-02
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 331
BETWEEN:
MANJINDER SINGH SAHOTA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER AND REASONS THEREFOR
NADON J.
[1] The applicant seeks an order staying the execution of the deportation order made against him. He is scheduled to be deported tonight at 8:00PM.
[2] The respondent concedes, for purposes of this motion, that the judicial review application filed by the applicant raises a serious issue.
[3] The dispute between the parties is in respect of the irreparable harm prong of the tripartite test. Specifically, Mr. Waldman, counsel for the applicant, argues that if I do not grant the stay sought by the applicant, irreparable harm will result, since the applicant will be separated from his wife and child (born October 10, 2001) for a period of at least two years.
[4] In her affidavit, the applicant's wife states that "[...] my child and I will be devastated as a result of my husband's deportation [...]". She then states that she cannot go to India with her husband because she will lose her job in Canada. At paragraph 5 of her affidavit, she adds:
5. I am deeply concerned about the effect of a two year separation on the baby. A child bonds with his parents and I am concerned that if he is separated from his father for two years this will cause him serious emotional damage.
[5] Unfortunately for the applicant, I have not been persuaded that irreparable harm will result if I do not grant the stay which he seeks. In Melo v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2000] F.C.J. No. 403 (F.C.T.D.), at para. 20, my colleague Pelletier J. made the following remarks concerning the meaning of the words "irreparable harm":
If the phrase "irreparable harm" is to retain any meaning at all, it must refer to some prejudice beyond that which is inherent in the notion of deportation itself. To be deported is to lose your job, to be separated from familiar faces and places. It is accompanied by enforced separation and heartbreak.
[6] I agree entirely with Pelletier J.'s remarks that the prejudice alleged by the applicant must be something "beyond that which is inherent in the notion of deportation". In my view, the applicant has not established that the prejudice which will result from his deportation constitutes irreparable harm. At best, he has shown that his wife and child will be inconvenienced and will suffer psychological hardship.
[7] For these reasons, the applicant's motion is dismissed.
Marc Nadon
JUDGE
O T T A W A (Ontario)
March 22, 2002
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-1270-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: MANJINDER SINGH SAHOTA v. MCI
MOTION HEARD BY TELECONFERENCE VIA OTTAWA AND TORONTO DATE OF TELECONFERENCE: March 22, 2002.
REASONS FOR ORDER OF The Honourable Mr. Justice Nadon DATED: March 22, 2002.
APPEARANCES
Mr. Lorne Waldman FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Jamie Todd FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD:
Mr. Lorne Waldman FOR THE APPLICANT Toronto, Ontario
Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada