Shaallan v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)

Shaallan v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2006-02-28
Neutral citation
2006 FC 267
File numbers
IMM-1026-06
Decision Content
Date: 20060228
Docket: IMM-1026-06
Citation: 2006 FC 267
Ottawa, Ontario, February 28, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes
BETWEEN:
NISSREEN SHAALLAN,
SINDY JAMALEDDINE,
LARA JAMALEDDINE
Applicant(s)
and
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondent(s)
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The Applicant, Nissreen Shaallan, is seeking a stay of a removal order on her own behalf and on behalf of her two young children. The underlying application for judicial review challenges the decision of a removal officer who declined a request for deferral of deportation to the United States.
[2] The Applicants have had the benefit of three independent reviews of their status in Canada. They unsuccessfully sought refugee status and they were later denied leave to pursue a judicial review from that decision. In August, 2005, they were unsuccessful in their application for a pre-removal risk assessment but did obtain a deferral from the removal order pending the completion of a humanitarian and compassionate (H & C) application. The H & C decision was rendered on January 17, 2006 and it, too, was unfavourable. The current removal order facing the Applicants stems from that H & C decision.
[3] I am, of course, required to apply the tripartite test from Toth v. Canada (1998), 86 NR 302 to the facts of this case.
[4] The Applicants were unable to point to any specific issue which would fulfill the serious issue requirement for a stay largely because the formal H & C decision is not yet available. However, the notes from that decision were appended to the Respondent's Motion Record and, to my eye, they disclose no obvious deficiency. The H & C officer found the Applicants' concerns to be generalized and speculative. Based on the record before me, those characterizations appear reasonable.
[5] Counsel for the Applicants argued that the premature removal of the two children from school and the risk that the mother-in-law in Lebanon might attempt to interfere with custody rights were sufficient to constitute irreparable harm. I disagree. The Applicants are being removed to the United States which will presumably afford the children a timely return to a school of comparable quality. The evidence concerning the mother-in-law amounts to nothing more than conjecture. I find nothing in the record to satisfy the requirement of irreparable harm.
[6] With respect to balance of convenience, the Applicant has had the benefit of three separate immigration assessments and was throughout unsuccessful. She has also had the benefit of a lengthy deferral to allow her H & C application to run its course. The balance of convenience favours the Respondent in fulfilling its obligation to effect a lawful and timely removal.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that this application for a stay of deportation is dismissed.
" R. L. Barnes "
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1026-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: NISSREEN SHAALLAN
SINDY JAMALEDDINE
LARA JAMALEDDINE
Applicants
-and-
MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 27, 2006
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BARNES
DATED: February 28, 2006
APPEARANCES:
Ben Kranc FOR THE APPLICANTS
Alison Engel-Yan
Asha Gafer FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Kranc & Associates
Barristers and Solicitors
Toronto, ON FOR THE APPLICANTS
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT