2019 FC, 2019 FC 1291

Date: 20191011 Docket: IMM-6048-19 Citation: 2019 FC 1291 Toronto, Ontario, October 11, 2019 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn BETWEEN: EMMANUEL KWAKU DADZIE Applicant and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondent ORDER AND REASONS UPON Notice of Motion on behalf of the Applicant for an interim stay of his removal to Ghana, currently scheduled for Saturday,October 12, 2019, pursuant to

section 18.2 of the Federal Courts Act, until such time as his Application for Leave and Judicial Review ofa decision of an officer made today at 8:14 a.m. denying his request for an administrative deferral of his removal, is considered finallydetermined; AND UPON considering the evidence and the submissions contained in the motion records filed by the Applicant and the Respondent; AND UPON hearing the oral submissions of counsel at the Court in Toronto on October 11, 2019, on short notice; AND UPON directing myself to the conjunctive tri-partite test in Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (1988) (FCA), 86 NR 302 (FCA) and the higher threshold where an applicant is seeking to review a refusal of anenforcement officer to exercise his or her discretion to defer removal as stated by this Court in Wang v Canada (Minister of Citizenshipand Immigration), 2001 FCT 148 , [2001] 3 FC 682, and approved by the Federal Court of Appeal in Baron v Canada (Ministerof Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 FCA 81; AND UPON being satisfied that the Order requested cannot be granted for the following reasons: 1.

Although the Court did not refuse to entertain this motion, it is noted that the Applicant had his Direction to Report for Removalon September 18, 2019; however, the request for deferral was only made 16 days later–a mere 8 days before the scheduledremoval.As a consequence the decision underlying this motion was received by the parties and the Court minutes before the timescheduled for this hearing.It cannot be said that this brief time to consider the merits of the motion is appropriate or that theinterests of justice are served by such last minute hearings. 2.

Justice Pinard in Mutadeen v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), unreported, June 22, 2000, Court File IMM-3164-00 [Mutadeen] stated that “‘last minute’ motions for stays force the respondent to respond without adequate preparation, donot facilitate the work of this Court, and are not in the interest of justice; the stay is an extraordinary procedure which deservesthorough and thoughtful consideration.” 3.

While there is some merit in the argument that the Respondent could have made the decision sooner, it is not sufficient toovercome the fact that the principal reason for the late decision rests with the Applicant.Enforcement officers are always requiredto respond to these and other requests in a thoughtful and timely manner.A week to respond is not excessive or unexpected. 4.

Having reviewed the decision and the records and the submission of counsel, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has established aserious issue on the elevated standard or irreparable harm.It is submitted that the officer failed to give sufficient weight to thelikelihood that the custody of the Applicant’s child could or would be resolved by November 5, 2019, the date for the next courthearing, and the consequences to the Applicant is he fails to attend in person.As the officer noted, there is nothing in the recordthat can be relied upon to conclude that the custody is likely to be determined by that date, or that his personal attendance isrequired.The suggestion that he might fare better if he attends in person, is mere speculation.No irreparable harm is shown on clearand convincing evidence. 5.

The officer appears to have carefully and properly weighed the consequences to the Applicant and his child of his removal beforeNovember 5, 2019, and I see no issue likely to succeed at the hearing of the application. 6. For these reasons, the motion is dismissed. THIS COURT ORDERS that: the motion for a stay of removal is dismissed. "Russel W. Zinn"

Judge