Celis v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Celis v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2002-11-27
Neutral citation
2002 FCT 1231
File numbers
IMM-5910-02
Decision Content
Date: 20021127
Docket: IMM-5910-02
Neutral Citation: 2002 FCT 1231
Between:
DIONISIO CELIS
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent,
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] Assuming without deciding that there is a serious issue to be tried in this matter, the requested temporary stay of the removal of the applicant from Canada is denied on the ground that no irreparable harm has been established.
[2] First, there is no evidence of any likelihood of jeopardy to the applicant's life or safety (see, i.e., Kerrutt v. M.E.I. (1992), 53 F.T.R. 93; Atakora v. M.E.I. (August 17, 1993), IMM-4430-93; Kaberuka v. M.E.I. (March 18, 1994), IMM-1236-94; Calderon v. Canada (M.C.I.) (1995), 92 F.T.R. 107, and Duve v. M.C.I. (March 26, 1996), IMM-3416-95).
[3] Second, family separation per se is not irreparable harm because it is within the normal consequences of deportation (see, i.e., Asomadu-Acheampong v. M.E.I. (March 22, 1993), IMM-1008-93; Boda v. M.E.I. (1992), 56 F.T.R. 106; Mobley v. M.C.I. (June 12, 1995), IMM-107-95; Jones v. M.C.I. (June 12, 1995), IMM-454-95; Ram v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1996] F.C.J. No. 883 (QL); Mario Ernesto Huezo et al. v. M.C.I. (April 21, 1997), IMM-1491-97; William Geovany Castro v. M.C.I. (October 14, 1997), IMM-2729-97; Melo v. Canada (M.C.I.) (2000), 188 F.T.R. 39, and Kaur v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2002] F.C.J. No. 766 (QL)). There is nothing about the applicant's case which takes it beyond the usual result of deportation. Since at least August 27, 2002, when the applicant was interviewed for the purpose of obtaining the information necessary to effect his removal, the applicant has known that steps were being taken toward this end. Despite this knowledge, the applicant did not, at any time, request that his removal be deferred. Nor did the applicant submit an application for special consideration on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate considerations. There is no serious evidence that the best interests of the applicant's child will be unduly affected by the absence of his father pending disposition of the within underlying proceedings.
[4] Under such circumstances, public interest requires that the removal order be executed as soon as reasonably practicable.
[5] Consequently, the motion is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA (Ontario)
November 27, 2002
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-5910-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: DIONISIO CELIS v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: November 27, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD
DATED: November 27, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Mr. David Matas FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Sharlene Telles-Langdon FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. David Matas FOR THE APPLICANT
Barrister & Solicitor
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario