Halawi v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)

Halawi v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2012-02-06
Neutral citation
2012 FC 156
File numbers
IMM-821-12, IMM-951-12
Decision Content
Date: 20120206
Dockets: IMM-951-12
IMM-821-12
Citation: 2012 FC 156
[UNREVISED CERTIFIED ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Montréal, Quebec, February 6, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
IMM-951-12
BETWEEN:
HALAWI, YOUSSEF
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondent
IMM-821-12
BETWEEN:
HALAWI, YOUSSEF
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT (Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, February 6, 2012)
[1] On February 1, 2012, the applicant served and filed motions for a stay of enforcement of the removal order (scheduled for February 13, 2012); one motion relates to an application for leave and judicial review of a decision on a pre‑removal risk assessment (PRRA), and the other is related to the enforcement officer’s refusal to defer his removal.
[2] The applicant filed a claim for refugee status on August 17, 2008.
[3] The applicant voluntarily withdrew that claim for refugee status on May 4, 2010, and the applicant even explained in an affidavit why he withdrew his claim for refugee status.
[4] After the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) refused this application for reinstatement on October 8, 2010, the applicant did not challenge the RPD’s decision.
[5] An enforcement officer should not defer a removal because of an application for leave and judicial review of a PRRA decision, as the Federal Court of Appeal stated recently in Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v Shpati, 2011 FCA 286 at paragraph 48.
[6] Also, knowing that the burden is higher for challenging an enforcement officer’s decision refusing to defer a removal and the fact that the applicant did not submit a valid argument against the decision refusing to defer the removal (Baron v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 FCA 81, [2010] 2 FCR 311, at paragraph 67, the Court finds that the applicant has not satisfied all three criteria of the Toth decision for the two decisions he is challenging.
[7] In fact, the applicant has not satisfied any of the three branches of the Toth test. The applicant’s motion does not raise a serious issue, there is no irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favours the respondents.
[8] Based on the Court’s analysis, the Court orders that the motion for a stay of enforcement of the applicant’s removal order is dismissed. There is no question of general importance to certify.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT RULES that the motions for a stay of enforcement of the removal order are dismissed. There is no question of general importance to certify.
“Michel M.J. Shore”
Judge
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LLB
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKETS: IMM-951-12 and IMM-821-12
STYLE OF CAUSE: HALAWI, YOUSSEF and MPSEP ET AL.
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 6, 2012
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT: SHORE J.
DELIVERED FROM
THE BENCH: February 6, 2012
APPEARANCES:
Anthony Karkar
FOR THE APPLICANT
Patricia Nobl
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Anthony Karkar
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE APPLICANT
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE RESPONDENT