GLADYS JOSEPH-TROTTIER Applicant v. MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND, 2014 FC 493

Date: 20140526 Docket: IMM-3893-14 Citation: 2014 FC 493 [UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION] Ottawa, Ontario, May 26, 2014 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr.

Justice Shore BETWEEN: GLADYS JOSEPH-TROTTIERApplicant andMINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] The applicant is seeking a stay of removal by this Court following a loss of permanent residence in Canada. [2] The importation into Canada of cocaine by the applicant led to an offence of unlawful importation of a substance listed inSchedule 1 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19. [3] On October 11, 2012, the Immigration Division concluded that a removal order should be issued against the applicant as aresult of inadmissibility on grounds of serious criminality under paragraph 36(1)(

a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC2001, c 27 [IRPA]. [4] Once the removal order was issued, the applicant lost her permanent resident status under paragraph 46(1)(

b) of the IRPA. [5] Taking a number of proceedings in a number of steps to avoid a removal to Haiti, the applicant filed an application for leaveagainst the removal decision in this Court on the grounds of fear of returning to Haiti because of her fear of being detained as a[translation] “criminal deportee” as well as her psychological condition, depressive, and her physical condition, HIV-positive in additionto being the biological mother of three children. [6] The applicant also stated that she could be the victim of criminality or even racist persecution because she was married to awhite person. [7] The applicant also submitted an application for permanent residence based on humanitarian and compassionateconsiderations.

This application, although pending, does not have the effect of staying the removal order. [8] As a result of research conducted by the officer who issued the removal order against the applicant, the record shows thatresponses were obtained stating that the applicant could be treated for HIV and depression in Haiti.

The HIV treatments are completelyfree; the medication for depression is not. [9] The decision-maker, the removal officer, also had information specifying that there would be an examination on arrival inHaiti and that the applicant was advised to have someone pick her up at the airport, once she arrived. [10] The applicant’s record shows that all of the applicant’s concerns specified above were dealt with separately and as a whole inrespect of the applicant, on the basis of detailed and thorough information from the country the applicant would be returned to;everything can be found, for each of the applicant’s concerns, in the record before the Court.

This information in the record establishesthat the applicant would not be deprived of care or face a risk to her person, physically or psychologically, based on the situation shewould be subject to. [11] For all these reasons, under the tripartite test in Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), (FCA), 86 NR 302 (FCA), the applicant has not met the three conjunctive requirements of the test to stay her removal. JUDGMENT THE COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that the application for a stay of the applicant’s removal order is dismissed. “Michel M.J. Shore” Judge

Certified true translation Mary Jo Egan, LLB FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-3893-14 STYLE OF CAUSE: GLADYS JOSEPH-TROTTIER v MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS MOTION CONSIDERED BY TELECONFERENCE ON MAY 22, 2014, BETWEEN OTTAWA, ONTARIO AND MONTRÉAL, qUEBEC JUDGMENT AND REASONS : SHORE J. DATED: MAY 26, 2014 APPEARANCES : Éric Taillefer FOR THE APPLICANT Daniel Latulippe FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Handfield & Associés Counsel Montréal, Quebec FOR THE APPLICANT William F. Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT