Date: 20000330
Docket: IMM-1316-00
BETWEEN:
ZIZILIA GUTIN
ANNA GUTIN
Applicants
| - and - |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
O"KEEFE J.
[1] The applicants have filed a motion for a stay of removal pending disposition of an application for leave to commence Judicial Review pursuant to s.82.1 of the Immigration Act challenging a decision of their negative PDRCC decision dated February 23, 2000 and for an injunction enjoining the Minister from removing the applicants from Canada until a decision is given in their application pursuant to s.114(2) of the Immigration Act to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
[2] The applicants were found not to be convention refugees by the Immigration and Refugee Board on May 26, 1999 and they were not granted leave to have that decision reviewed on Judicial Review. The applicants were also determined not to be members of the PDRCC class by a decision dated February 23, 2000. The applicants have filed a judicial review application including a leave application with respect to this decision.
[3] I have reviewed the materials filed with this motion and the application for Judicial Review dated March 13, 2000 and I have considered the representations of Counsel.
[4] The law is clear with respect to the granting of an interlocutory injunction staying the removal of the applicants. The tri-partite test for granting an interlocutory injunction was established by the Supreme Court of Canada in R.J.R. MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (A.G.), [1994] 1SCR 311. The test is:
| (1) Is there a serious issue or question to be tried? |
| (2) Will irreparable harm occur to the plaintiffs if the stay is not granted? |
| (3) The balance of convenience in the sense - which party will suffer the greater harm from the granting or refusal of the interlocutory injunction? |
The law is also clear that the applicant has to meet all three parts of the test in order to obtain an injunction.
[5] My review of the materials filed and my consideration of the arguments advanced by Counsel satisfies me that the applicants have met all of the requirements of the tri-partite test for granting an interlocutory injunction as outlined in paragraph 4 of this decision and accordingly I would order that an interlocutory injunction issue granting a stay of the removal of the applicants until the later of the date of the determination of the judicial review application or the date of the decision in the s.114(2) application.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application for a stay of the Removal of the applicants be granted on the terms stated in paragraph 5 above.
"John A. O"Keefe"
J.F.C.C.
Charlottetown, PE
March 30, 2000
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: IMM-1316-00 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: ZIZILIA GUTIN |
ANNA GUTIN
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
| DATE OF HEARING: MONDAY, MARCH 27, 2000 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
REASONS FOR ORDER
| AND ORDER BY: O"KEEFE J. |
DATED: THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2000
APPEARANCES: Mr. Rodney L.H. Woolf
For the Applicants
Ms. Cheryl D. Mitchell
For the Respondent
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Rodney L. H. Woolf |
| Barristers & Solicitors |
| 1474 Bathurst Street, Suite 100 |
Toronto, Ontario M5P 3G9
| For the Applicants |
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
| For the Respondent |
| FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA |
Date: 20000330
Docket: IMM-1316-00
Between:
| ZIZILIA GUTIN |
ANNA GUTIN
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
| AND ORDER |