Date: 19980309
Docket: IMM-916-98
BETWEEN:
DOMINIC FABIAN DIXON
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
RICHARD J.:
[1] The applicant has applied for a stay of execution of a deportation order which is to be executed on March 18, 1998.
[2] The applicant was landed in Canada on July 23, 1994.
[3] The applicant was ordered deported on March 19, 1997, at Edmonton, Alberta, due to his criminal conviction. The deportation order was issued pursuant to subsection 32(2) of the Immigration Act, because the adjudicator found the applicant to be a person described in sub-paragraph 27(1)(a)(i) of the Act because he is a permanent resident who has been convicted of an offence that, if committed in Canada, constitutes an offence that may be punishable under any Act of Parliament by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more.
[4] The applicant was born on September 14, 1975, in India. He resides in Edmonton, Alberta. On October 30, 1995, he was convicted of Indecent Contact with a Child and received a suspended sentence of two years and fined $500.00. It was this offence that led to his deportation order. The offence occurred in February 1995.
[5] The legality of the deportation order is not challenged.
[6] The applicant appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division based on the grounds that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, he should not be removed from Canada under paragraph 70(1)(b) of the Immigration Act. The applicant was represented by counsel at the hearing held on December 2, 1997. The panel heard the testimony of three witnesses including the applicant. The applicant and respondent submitted several documents into evidence.
[7] In a decision dated January 28, 1998, the Appeal Division dismissed the appeal as follows:
| The Appeal Division is of the opinion that the appellant has not been able to show why, in all the circumstances of this case, he should not be removed from Canada. The Appeal Division finds that there are insufficient mitigating circumstances in this case that warrant its exercise of special relief in this case. Accordingly, the appeal pursuant to paragraph 70(1) of the Act is dismissed both in law and in equity. |
[8] The applicant filed an application for leave and for judicial review of the IAD decision on March 3, 1998.
[9] The IAD's decision is well-reasoned and deals with all relevant issues.
[10] In order to grant a stay, the applicant must satisfy the tripartite test.
[11] Even if I were to accept that there is a serious issue to be tried, and in my view, the applicant has a major hurdle to establish this, the applicant has not established that he would suffer irreparable harm if the relief was not granted. The dislocation occasioned by his removal may result in inconvenience or even in some hardship, but it does not establish irreparable harm.
[12] The respondent has an interest in seeing to the effective and timely implementation of a deportation order under section 48 of the Immigration Act.
[13] The application for a stay of the execution of the deportation order is accordingly dismissed.
__________________________
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
March 9, 1998