Date: 20010622
Docket: IMM-2465-01
Neutral reference: 2001 FCT 697
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, JUNE 22, 2001
Before: PINARD J.
Between:
JOSEPH JULES
SUZIE, ALPHONSE JULES
STÉPHANIE DEBOR, JULES, minor child
BILLY HANS SERG, JULES, minor child
CLIFFORD, JULES, minor child
Plaintiff
AND
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
Motion by the plaintiff for a stay of execution of a removal order to be executory on June 23, 2001.
[1] The plaintiffs claimed refugee status on July 20, 2000. This claim was dismissed by the Refugee Division on February 2, 2001 as a result of the principal claimant's lack of credibility, and the fact that his account was the basis of the other claims.
[2] The plaintiffs filed an application for leave and judicial review from that decision May 17, 2001. The latter application, filed some two months after the 15-day deadline laid down by the Immigration Act expired, was not and still is not accompanied by an application for an extension of time.
[3] In the circumstances, as this motion for a stay is incidental to the foregoing application for leave and judicial review, I can only conclude that there is no serious issue to be tried. In the present state of the record, as the application for leave includes no application for an extension of time, the application for leave cannot be allowed (see Ragip v. S.S.C., IMM-3063-94, F.C.T.D., a judgment of July 18, 1994; and Semenduev v. Canada, IMM-4727-96, F.C.T.D., a judgment of January 17, 1997).
[4] In any event, I consider that even if the extension for time had been duly requested it could not have been granted on the basis alleged before me of a somewhat general allegation of negligence by the plaintiffs' former counsel. In this connection, the rules set out in the following two cases clearly apply to the case at bar:
(1) Nunez v. Canada, IMM-1172-00, F.C.T.D., a judgment of April 28, 2000; and
(2) Cove v. Canada, IMM-934-01, F.C.T.D., a judgment of March 20, 2001.
[5] As the plaintiffs were not able to establish the first prerequisite in support of the instant motion for a stay, namely the existence of a serious question to be tried, their motion is dismissed.
|
Yvon Pinard J.F.C. |
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20010622
Docket: IMM-2465-01
Between:
JOSEPH JULES
SUZIE, ALPHONSE JULES
STÉPHANIE DEBOR, JULES, minor child
BILLY HANS SERG, JULES, minor child
CLIFFORD, JULES, minor child
Plaintiff
AND
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
ORDER AND REASONS FOR ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: IMM-2465-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: JOSEPH JULES
SUZIE, ALPHONSE JULES
STÉPHANIE DEBOR, JULES, minor child
BILLY HANS SERG, JULES, minor child
CLIFFORD, JULES, minor child
Plaintiff
AND
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 22, 2001
ORDER AND REASONS FOR ORDER BY:
PINARD J.
DATED: June 22, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Luc Desmarais for the plaintiff
Isabelle Brochu for the defendant
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Luc Desmarais for the plaintiff
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg for the defendant
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec