Ghazal v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
Source text
Ghazal v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2012-11-15 Neutral citation 2012 FC 1323 File numbers IMM-11628-12 Decision Content Date: 20121115 Docket: IMM-11628-12 Citation: 2012 FC 1323 [UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION] Ottawa, Ontario, November 15, 2012 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore BETWEEN: OMAR GHAZAL Applicant and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1] A stay is requested with respect to the applicant’s removal scheduled for today, November 15, 2012. The respondent was served a few minutes before the end of the working day on November 14, 2012; yesterday. [2] As a result of his criminal past, the applicant is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years for fraud and narcotics. [3] The applicant’s case history shows that he is the subject of a removal order; the applicant did not appear for a prior departure scheduled for August 24, 2012. The applicant presented the police with a fake identity. [4] A stay of the removal is an injunction, therefore an exceptional measure. It is a measure that is not granted to a person who does not have clean hands. [5] Knowing that the applicant did not appear for his last removal date, with his criminal past and that he was arrested and detained to ensure…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Ghazal v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2012-11-15 Neutral citation 2012 FC 1323 File numbers IMM-11628-12 Decision Content Date: 20121115 Docket: IMM-11628-12 Citation: 2012 FC 1323 [UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION] Ottawa, Ontario, November 15, 2012 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore BETWEEN: OMAR GHAZAL Applicant and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1] A stay is requested with respect to the applicant’s removal scheduled for today, November 15, 2012. The respondent was served a few minutes before the end of the working day on November 14, 2012; yesterday. [2] As a result of his criminal past, the applicant is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years for fraud and narcotics. [3] The applicant’s case history shows that he is the subject of a removal order; the applicant did not appear for a prior departure scheduled for August 24, 2012. The applicant presented the police with a fake identity. [4] A stay of the removal is an injunction, therefore an exceptional measure. It is a measure that is not granted to a person who does not have clean hands. [5] Knowing that the applicant did not appear for his last removal date, with his criminal past and that he was arrested and detained to ensure that he not become illegal again is sufficient to refuse to hear the stay motion (see Brunton v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2006 FC 33 at paragraphs 4-6). [6] For all of these reasons, the Court will not hear the motion. ORDER THE COURT ORDERS that the stay motion will not be heard. “Michel M.J. Shore” Judge Certified true translation Janine Anderson, Translator FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-11628-12 STYLE OF CAUSE: OMAR GHAZAL v THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369 REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: SHORE J. DATED: November 15, 2012 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Anthony Karkar FOR THE APPLICANT Suzanne Trudel FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Anthony Karkar Counsel Montréal, Quebec FOR THE APPLICANT Myles J. Kirvan Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
R v Brown
[2022] 1 SCR 506