Mutti v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Mutti v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2006-01-31
Neutral citation
2006 FC 97
File numbers
IMM-362-06
Decision Content
Date: 20060131
Docket: IMM-362-06
Citation: 2006 FC 97
Montréal, Quebec, January 31, 2006
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE TREMBLAY-LAMER
BETWEEN:
BALDEV SINGH MUTTI
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
and
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is a motion for a stay of execution of a removal order against the applicant until the merits of the application for leave and judicial review have been disposed of. The underlying application for leave and for judicial review relates to a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) decision. The application for leave was filed late.
[2] As an extension of time is a condition precedent to the consideration of the underlying leave application, the applicant must, for the purposes of the stay motion, also establish that the request for an extension of time is justified. If he is denied the extension of time, there is no leave application to be disposed of and consequently the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the motion for a stay (Dessertine et al c. M.C.I., IMM-3931-00, August 14, 2000; Paredes c. M.C.I., IMM-3989-97, October 20, 1997, Noël J. (as he then was)).
[3] It is well established that the four factors set out in Canada(Attorney General) v. Hennelly, [1999] F.C.J. No. 846 (F.C.A.) govern the discretionary decision of whether or not to grant the extension of time. To be granted an extension of time, an applicant must demonstrate:
1. a continuing intention to pursue his or her application;
2. that the application has some merit;
3. that no prejudice to the respondent arises from the delay; and
4. that a reasonable explanation for the delay exists.
[4] Assuming without deciding that the first three requirements are met, I find that the applicant has not provided any valid reasons for the delay. Having poor legal representation and ignorance of the law are neither excuses nor justifications for a delay. Further, I note that his contentions are not supported by affidavit. The request for an extension of time is thus denied. The leave application is out of time and is therefore dismissed. Consequently, the Court is without jurisdiction to entertain this motion for a stay.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS that:
(a) the motion for an extension of time to file the application for leave and for judicial review of the decision of the PRRA officer be dismissed;
(b) the motion for a stay of the removal order be dismissed.
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
JUDGE
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-362-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: Baldev Singh Mutti v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration et al.
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: January 30, 2006
REASONS FOR ORDER: TREMBLAY-LAMER J.
DATED: January 31, 2006
APPEARANCES:
Alain Vallières
FOR THE APPLICANT
Lisa Maziade
FOR THE RESPONDENTS
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Alain Vallières
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE APPLICANT
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE RESPONDENTS