Date: 20000629
Docket: IMM-3308-00
BETWEEN:
LLOYD CHARLES CLARKE
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
[Delivered orally during a telephone conference call
on Wednesday, June 28, 2000, as edited]
LEMIEUX J.:
[1] These reasons record the oral ones which I pronounced on June 28, 2000, dismissing for lack of a serious issue the application by Lloyd Charles Clarke for a stay of his removal from Canada the next day at 10:30 a.m.
[2] The stay application was in support of a judicial review application which Mr. Clarke filed on June 26, 2000, in which he seeks leave from this Court to commence an application for judicial review of a direction to report issued to him on May 9, 2000, by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, for removal.
[3] Mr. Clarke based his application for a stay on the failure of the removals officer to take into account the best interests of his children and the interests of his elderly mother who is in ill health.
[4] Counsel for Mr. Clarke specifically referred to two letters in support which were addressed to the Court: one letter was from Mr. Clarke's children who are aged 19, 20 and 23; the other was from his mother who resides with Mr. Clarke's sister.
[5] The reason for lack of serious issue is because the matter of his children's interests were thoroughly canvassed by the Appeals Division in its October 6, 1999 decision where Mr. Clarke was the appellant seeking a determination that he should not be removed from Canada. The Appeals Division dismissed his appeal after hearing testimony which included that of Mr. Clarke's sister and on May 25, 2000, Mr. Justice MacKay of this Court denied leave for judicial review (IMM-5498-99).
[6] In his leave application, Mr. Clarke specifically put forward arguments that the Appeals Division had ignored relevant evidence of rehabilitation and establishment and had ignored relevant evidence concerning the best interests of the children including their emotional and financial dependency upon him. In my view, Mr. Justice MacKay's decision closes the book on these matters. In terms of the dependency of his mother on him, I am satisfied the Appeals Division dealt with the matter when Mr. Clarke's sister testified before the Appeals Division. No issue on this point was taken before Mr. Justice MacKay.
[7] Moreover, in my view, the removals officer must, under section 48 of the Immigration Act, execute a deportation order as soon as practicable and the removals officer does not have the kind of discretion to delay the discharge of his duty on the grounds invoked before me by counsel for Mr. Clarke.
[8] For these reasons, this stay application is dismissed.
"François Lemieux"
J U D G E
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
JUNE 29, 2000
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-3308-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: Lloyd Charles Clarke v. M.C.I.
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 28, 2000
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Lemieux
DATED: June 29, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Munyonzwe Hamalengwafor the Applicant
Mr. Kevin Lunneyfor the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Munyonzwe Hamalengwa for the Applicant North York, Ontario
Mr. Morris Rosenberg,
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for the Respondent