Furbert v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)

Furbert v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2013-12-06
Neutral citation
2013 FC 1228
File numbers
IMM-7637-13
Decision Content
Date: 20131206
Docket:
IMM-7637-13
Citation: 2013 FC 1228
Toronto, Ontario, December 6, 2013
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
BETWEEN:
BONNIE MARILYN FURBERT
KHALIL SHEAQWON HAYWARD
AKEYLE KALONJI FURBERT
TENDAI ALALE FURBERT
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The Applicants, a mother and her three children are seeking a stay of removal from deportation to Bermuda. They are challenging an Enforcement Officer’s decision to refuse to defer the Applicants’ removal on the basis of a pending two month Humanitarian and Compassionate Considerations application [H&C].
[2] This Court has already dismissed leave of the Applicants’ negative refugee claim on the basis of state protection and the possibility of obtaining citizenship from the United Kingdom [U.K.].
[3] Upon reading all the materials submitted by both parties and, also, having heard the parties, the Court has considered the matter in its entirety.
[4] This Court recognizes the application of the tripartite conjunctive Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 86 NR 302 (FCA) decision test criteria and has determined that no serious issue remains to be determined; no irreparable harm would ensue for the Applicants if the stay is not issued; nor is there a balance of convenience that favours the Applicants.
[5] The discretion of the Enforcement Officer is limited. As no special circumstances in regard to the H&C are in evidence, other than the usual hardships of departure for adults and children, the Enforcement Officer’s margin of manoeuvre in such cases is non existent (Baron v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 FCA 81, [2010] 2 FCR 311)
[6] The lack of a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment [PRRA] does not necessitate deferral on the basis of constitutionality (Toth v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2012 FC 1051; Sangarapillai v MPSEP (6 January 2013) IMM-13249-12).
[7] Also, subsequent to the coming into force of the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, SC 2010, c 8, subparagraph 112.(2)(b.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001 c 27, no person subject to removal may apply for a PRRA if removal takes place within twelve months of the Refugee Protection Division’s decision that the refugee claim was abandoned; any Charter challenge must demonstrate a real risk of mistreatment, none of which was shown (Farhadi v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 3 FC 315, 144 FTR 76 (TD]).
[8] The right to an automatic citizenship is, also, not contested by the Applicants in regard to the United Kingdom.
[9] No outstanding risks or irreparable harm have been manifested to this Court.
[10] Therefore, none of the three conjunctive criteria of the Toth (FCA) decision test have been satisfied by the Applicants.
[11] Thus, the motion for a stay of removal is denied.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the motion for a stay of removal be denied.
"Michel M.J. Shore"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET:
IMM-7637-13
STYLE OF CAUSE:
BONNIE MARILYN FURBERT
KHALIL SHEAQWON HAYWARD
AKEYLE KALONJI FURBERT
TENDAI ALALE FURBERT
v
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
PLACE OF HEARING:
toronto, ontario
DATE OF HEARING:
december 6, 2013
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER:
SHORE J.
DATED:
December 6, 2013
APPEARANCES:
Jeremiah A. Eastman
For The Applicants
John Provart
For The RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jeremiah A. Eastman
Barrister and Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
For The Applicants
William F. Pentney
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
For The RESPONDENT