2023 FC, 2023 FC 1392

Date: 20231019 Docket: IMM-13103-23 Citation: 2023 FC 1392 Vancouver, British Columbia, October 19, 2023 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Roy BETWEEN:SUKHDEEP SINGHApplicantandMINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSRespondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER ROY J. [1] This Applicant came to this Court in extremis to defer his departure from Canada on October 20, 2023. He was advised, one monthago, on September 20, 2023 of the date of his removal. On September 26, he purchased his ticket for India.

Only on Saturday, October 7did he seek an administrative deferral from the Inland Enforcement Officer, deferral that was denied on October 17. [2] The Applicant is a citizen of India who has been in Canada since March 2018. More than one year after his work permit had expired,he made a refugee claim which was denied by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). Anattempt at judicial review failed. The Applicant has also submitted an H&C application in March 2023.

It is pending in a queue that is 19months long. [3] Counsel for the Respondent requested that the Court refuse to hear the stay motion in view of its lateness. I chose nevertheless to hearthe matter. [4] The test for granting a stay requires that an applicant satisfy the three prongs of the well known test found in RJR–MacDonald Inc. vCanada (Attorney General), (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 311 and Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (FCA), [1988] 86 NR 302 (FCA): 1. Is there a serious issue to be tried in the underlying application?

In a case like the one before the Court, an applicantmust show a likelihood of success (Wang v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 148); 2. The applicant must show irreparable harm if his deferral is not granted; 3. The balance of convenience must favour the applicant. [5] I have reviewed the motion record and heard the parties late on October 18. The Applicant did not meet any of the three prongs of thetest. [6] His claim that he has a serious issue to try in the underlying application is that the reasons given to refuse to grant the administrativedecision are not adequate.

On the contrary, the Applicant knows full well, reading the reasons, why he is denied. Each of his argumentsfor the stay is refuted by the decision maker. The Applicant may disagree with the result, but that does not make the reasons to beinadequate. [7] Moreover, the allegation that he will suffer irreparable harm is just that, an allegation. These are allegations which correspond toallegations made before and rejected as the Refugee Protection Division and the Refugee Appeal Division concluded that the Applicanthas an internal flight alternative in his country of citizenship, India.

Our Court did not intervene. [8] There is nothing on this record that even approached the level required by the jurisprudence. More than twenty years ago, the FederalCourt of Appeal stated that “irreparable harm must constitute more than a series of possibilities. The onus is on the appellant todemonstrate evidence that the extraordinary remedy of a stay of removal is warranted” (Atwal v Canada (Minister of Citizenship andImmigration), 2004 FCA 427, para 14). [9] A useful

summary of the requirement of the attributes and quality of the evidence to satisfy the test of “irreparable harm” is found inCanada (Attorney General) v. Oshkosh Defense Canada Inc., 2018 FCA 102: [25] Finally, to prove irreparable harm, the moving party must demonstrate in a detailed and concrete way that it will sufferreal, definite, unavoidable harm—not hypothetical and speculative harm—that cannot be repaired later: Stoney First Nationv. Shotclose, 2011 FCA 232, 422 N.R. 191 at paras. 47-49; Laperrière v. D. & A. MacLeod Company Ltd., 2010 FCA 84,402 N.R. 341 at paras. 14-22; Gateway City Church v.

Canada (National Revenue), 2013 FCA 126, 445 N.R. 360 at paras.14-16; Glooscap Heritage Society v. Canada(National Revenue), 2012 FCA 255, 440 N.R. 232 at para. 31; Canada(Attorney General) v. Canada (Information Commissioner), 2001 FCA 25, 268 N.R. 328 at para. 12; Janssen Inc. v. AbbvieCorporation, 2014 FCA 176 at paras. 44-46. Those who offer assertions rather than evidentiary demonstrations and“[a]ssumptions, speculations, hypotheticals and arguable assertions, unsupported by evidence” often fall short on this branchof the stay test: Glooscap at para. 31; Stoney First Nation at para. 48.

Those who offer “evidence at a convincing level of

particularity that demonstrates a real probability that unavoidable irreparable harm will result unless a stay is granted” often succeed: Glooscap at para. 31; see also Dywidag Systems International, Canada, Ltd. v. Garford Pty Ltd ., 2010 FCA 232 , 406 N.R. 304 at para. 14 and Laperrière at para. 17 . [ Emphasis added ] [ 10 ] Finally, it stands to reason that the balance of convenience favours the Respondent.

The Applicant argued that because there is a serious issue and there is irreparable harm, it follows that the balance of convenience is in his favour. [ 11 ] I have found that neither the serious issue prong nor the irreparable harm requirement of the test were met. The Applicant’s argument must accordingly fall. Furthermore, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides specifically that a removal order must be enforced as soon as possible. There is a significant public interest in the protection of the integrity of the immigration system.

Parliament has spoken and the rule of law commands that the legislation be applied. [ 12 ] As a result, the motion for a stay of removal of Mr. Sukhdeep Singh to take place on October 20, 2023 is dismissed. ORDER in IMM-13103-23 THIS COURT ORDERS that the motion for stay of removal of Mr. Sukhdeep Singh to take place on October 20, 2023 be dismissed. "Yvan Roy" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-13103-23 STYLE OF CAUSE: SUKHDEEP SINGH v MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia DATE OF HEARING: October 18, 2023 REASONS FOR ORDER: ROY J.

DATED: October 19, 2023 APPEARANCES : Rajender Singh For The Applicant Richard Li For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : RST Law Professional Corporation Barristers and Solicitors Mississauga, Ontario For The Applicant

Deputy Attorney General of Canada For The Respondent