PRESENT: The Honourable
BETWEEN:
and
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
ORDER
UPON having heard the parties by telephone conference in the late afternoon of Friday, June 1, 2007, the Court duly specifies;
WHEREAS the Respondent was served at 3:00 p.m. this afternoon (Friday, June 1, 2007) with an application to stay the removal of the Applicant to
RECOGNIZING that the Applicant was advised of his removal date in person and in writing on May 17, 2007; and consequently, the Applicant had over two weeks to bring this application to the attention of the Court, yet this motion was not served until this afternoon. No reasonable justification has been provided for this delay, further to discussion with both parties;
ACKNOWLEDGING that the Applicant has a serious criminal conviction in
FURTHERMORE, ACKNOWLEDGING, during a telephone conference with both parties, that there is no underlying decision that is subject to judicial review in this stay motion;
RECOGNIZING, that the Court agrees with the Respondent that the Matadeen v.
Indeed, “last minute” motions for stays force the respondent to respond without adequate preparation, do not facilitate the work of this Court, and are not in the interest of justice; a stay is an extraordinary procedure, which deserves thorough and thoughtful consideration.
ACKNOWLEDGING that Justice Pinard’s decision has been followed by this Court in a number of other cases, most recently in Kulbir Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), January 30, 2003, (IMM-530-03), and Varadi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (F.C.T.D.) June 23, 2003, (IMM-4705-03);
DULY NOTING that decisions in the same vein were rendered in IDOWU v.
THIS COURT CONCLUDES that it will not entertain this last minute application as it would not be in the interests of justice.
THIS COURT ORDERS that the matter not be entertained by the Court as it would not be in the interests of justice as the Applicant has not come to the Court with clean hands.