2019 FC, 2019 FC 1223

Date: 20190924 Docket: IMM-5671-19 Citation: 2019 FC 1223 [UNREVISED CERTIFIED ENGLISH TRANSLATION] Ottawa, Ontario, September 24, 2019 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore BETWEEN: PATRICK NGOYI KONGOLO Applicant and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondent ORDER FOLLOWING a reading of the record, this matter involving an application for a stay of removal from Canada, set for tomorrow,Wednesday, September 25, 2019, will not be heard, given that the applicant does not come before the Court with "“clean hands”".

RECOGNIZING that a stay is an injunction, an exceptional discretionary remedy for which an applicant must have "“clean hands”" tohave the application considered by the Court. KNOWING that the applicant is the subject of several inadmissibility reports for criminality and serious criminality, including aconviction for uttering death threats, accompanied by a danger opinion that has been upheld by a judgment of the Federal Court. FINDING that "“those who seek equity must do equity”", as per Wright v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002FCTD 113 at para 26.

Also worth noting is Manohararaj v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness): [13] It is important to note that the Applicants chose to disobey a valid deportation order, and a warrant was issued for theirarrest. The Applicants were represented by counsel at the time. The Applicants did not approach this Court for relief untilafter their arrest. [14] This Court has held that the equitable remedy of a stay can be denied to those who do not come to the Court with cleanhands, including those who deliberately choose to disobey deportation orders. (Araujo v.

Canada (Minister of Citizenshipand Immigration), (27 August 1997), IMM-3660-97 (F.C.T.D.) Ilyas v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1December 2000), IMM-6126-00 (F.C.T.D.)) [15] In the case at bar, the Applicants have ignored a validly issued removal order. As such, they have purposely violatedCanada’s immigration laws and have undermined the integrity of the system. The Respondent submits that this reason alonejustifies the dismissal of his application. (Homex Reality and Development Co. v. Wyoming (Village), (SCC), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1011 see also Basu v.

Canada, (FC), [1992] 2 F.C. 38 (F.C.T.D.)) THE COURT ORDERS that, for all these reasons, the applicant’s application not be considered and that the motion be dismissed. “Michel M.J. Shore” Judge Certified true translation This 25th day of September, 2019. Michael Palles, Reviser