Court File No. IMM-3210-98
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
(Trial Division)
BETWEEN:
STANA TUDOSE,
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent
------
Motion heard before The Honourable Mr. Justice M. M.
Teitelbaum, sitting in Courtroom No. 2 of the Federal Court of Canada, Canada Life Building, 8th Floor, 330 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario on Monday, the 13th day of July, 1998.
------
APPEARANCES:
G. Tudose For the Applicant
G. McDonald For the Respondent
Court Registrar: Caterina Chiochio
------
Nethercut & Company Limited
Official Reporters
396 Oakwood Drive
Burlington, Ontario
L7N 1X2
(905) 632-6070
Per: Debbie Ferguson
DECISION & REASONS
HIS LORDSHIP: I can give you my decision right away. Unfortunately, I have absolutely no material before me of any value that would indicate to me that I would be permitted, pursuant to the law, to order a stay of execution of the removal order. I want to make a further comment. One of the reasons for there being irreparable harm according to the Applicant is that if she has to return to Romania, she has no family and no financial support. It appears to me rather ironic that, in Canada where she has two children, neither one of them support her but it is left to the citizens of Canada to support her through welfare. I find that very difficult to accept, with all due respect. What is the family support that she has here in Canada? Well, she has two children, but neither of them make much of an effort, it appears from the evidence that I have, to support her financially. She relies on welfare. The Applicant is not being removed as a criminal. She's not considered a criminal and I'm sure that the Applicant is a very fine woman. The Applicant is being refused permission to remain in Canada because she did not come here legally. She came by saying that she was a visitor and probably never had the intention to leave because her two children are here.
The Applicant had an opportunity, I'm sure to come to Canada legally. Legally, in the sense of if she wanted to be a landed immigrant, then her children could have applied for her to come in as a landed immigrant. If, of course, they could show that they could support her and not the citizens of Canada who would have to support her.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Applicant will suffer hardship if returned to Romania and I'm sorry for that. But, again it's not the Government of Canada, nor the citizens of this country's responsibility to support her. It's for her children to support her the best way they can.
The Applicant states that she was never given any reason for her denial on the humanitarian and compassionate application. The law states that she does not -- that no reasons need be given. I have no evidence whatsoever in front of me with regards to the issue that the Applicant was denied due process in any form. The Applicant had a refugee hearing, it was denied. The Applicant was permitted to file an application for leave, the Applicant filed an application for leave. The law states that you must file an application for leave within 15 days of receipt of the decision and if you don't, you have to make special request to the Court to obtain an extension of time. That wasn't done. Now, I understand that the Applicant does not have a lawyer, but that doesn't mean that we can do away with all the rules and not follow them simply because the Applicant doesn't have a lawyer.
MS TUDOSE: But, we applied for an extension of time when I came here on -- when I filed all the other documents. The affidavit and notice of motion.
HIS LORDSHIP: And the refugee claim?
MS TUDOSE: Yes, I wrote so many papers. Notice of motion and application for leave, everything, we asked for more time.
HIS LORDSHIP: I'm sorry. The copy of the papers that I have here shows that you scratched that out. You took a pen and you scratched it out.
MS TUDOSE: Where?
HIS LORDSHIP: On the document where the Applicant further applies for the Court to allow an extension of time. It's all scratched out.
MS TUDOSE: Can you tell me which one?
HIS LORDSHIP: On one of the documents that you have.
MS TUDOSE: I didn't see. That's why I came here to apply for an extension. I didn't scratch anything.
HIS LORDSHIP: You want to show her this? Is your initials G.T.? Show her this please. You see the initials G.T.; are those your initials?
MS TUDOSE: "The Applicant further applies to the Court to allow ..." I was confused by the person who made me to ...
HIS LORDSHIP: All right, can I have that back?
MS TUDOSE: But, that is why I came.
HIS LORDSHIP: I'm sorry, the whole application before me is irregular and, in addition, which is even more important, is entirely without merit. The application for the stay is denied.
MS TUDOSE: No, it's not. I got my copy that I didn't scratch.
HIS LORDSHIP: The application for stay is denied.
MS TUDOSE: "The Applicant further applies to the Court to allow an extension of time." Mine is not scratched.
HIS LORDSHIP: Well, mine is, and it's your G.T. beside it.
MS TUDOSE: I didn't put G.T. beside it.
HIS LORDSHIP: I showed you the initials.
MS TUDOSE: I don't know, I was confused, but I have here my copy.
HIS LORDSHIP: Madam the application for the stay is denied. I'm sorry.
MS TUDOSE: And what happens next?
HIS LORDSHIP: She is going to be, I assume, the Minister will execute the removal order. She has to appear I think on July 20th, if I'm not mistaken. Am I correct, Ms McDonald?
MS McDONALD: That's correct.
MS TUDOSE: And, what other options we have?
HIS LORDSHIP: Go see a lawyer, and maybe they can find options for you. I'm not here to act as your lawyer, ma'am.
MS TUDOSE: Why don't you give me an extension of time?
HIS LORDSHIP: For what?
MS TUDOSE: To make a decision.
HIS LORDSHIP: I don't need an extension of time to make a decision. My decision is obvious to me. Thank you.
THE REGISTRAR: This matter is concluded.
--- CERTIFIED CORRECT:
Debbie Ferguson