Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

x




Date: 20000529


Docket: IMM-2709-00


                                    

BETWEEN:

     JULIA CSANYI AND DOROTTYA TOTH

     Applicants


     - and -


     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

     AND IMMIGRATION

    

     Respondent





     REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

BLAIS J.

                                    

[1]      This is a motion for a stay of the removal of Julia Csanyi and her daughter Dorottya Toth on May 30th, 2000.

[2]      The Applicant suggests that the Respondent has fettered his discretion in writing on May 8th, 2000:

"As indicated in my previous reply to your office, dated March 22, 2000, allow approximately 8 months for file to be received. Please be advised that it is our Ontario regional policy not to expedite 114(2) application due to impending removal. Note that all applications will be reviewed and a decision will be rendered whether the subject is in Canada or has left."

[3]      I am not convinced that the officer had a duty to expedite the matter or that he fettered his discretion. Section 114(2) is a discretionary provision and a decision will be made according to the law. Furthermore, it is not possible considering the workload to expedite the decision each time there is a deportation order.

[4]      In my view, there is no serious issue. Furthermore, I am not convinced that they would suffer irreparable harm should they return to Hungary. The loss of a school year although harmful is not by itself irreparable. There is no evidence adduced that the applicant"s life will be endangered in Hungary. She claimed that she suffered abuse while married. There is no evidence that the abuse continued when she divorced her husbands. As to the husband, the test provides that the irreparable harm be done to the applicant and not to a third party.

[5]      This stay should be dismissed.


                                 "Pierre Blais"

     J.F.C.C.


Toronto, Ontario

May 29, 2000     



FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                    

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

                                                

COURT NO:                      IMM-2709-00
STYLE OF CAUSE:                  JULIA CSANYI AND DOROTTYA TOTH

     Applicants

                         -and-


                         THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                         AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

DATE OF HEARING:              MONDAY, MAY 29, 2000
PLACE OF HEARING:              TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER AND

ORDER BY:                      BLAIS J.
DATED:                      MONDAY, MAY 29, 2000

APPEARANCES BY:              Mr. Max Chaudhary

                                 For the Applicants

                                

                         Ms. Cheryl D. Mitchell

                            

                                 For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:          Chaudhary Law Office

                         Barrister and Solicitor

                         18 Wynford Drive, Suite 707

                         North York, Ontario

                         M3C 3S2

                            

                                 For the Applicants

                            

                         Morris Rosenberg

                         Deputy Attorney General of Canada

                                 For the Respondent


                             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA


                                 Date: 20000529

                        

         Docket: IMM-2709-00

                             Between:


                             JULIA CSANYI AND DOROTTYA TOTH

Applicants




                             -and-




                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                             AND IMMIGRATION

                                            

Respondent




                            

        

                             REASONS FOR ORDER

                             AND ORDER

                            

    

                                                

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.