Date: 20000427
Docket: IMM-2155-00
ISTVAN (STEFAN) NAGY,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
& IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
BETWEEN:
REASONS FOR ORDER
NADON J.
[1] The Applicant is scheduled to be removed from Canada today, April 27, 2000, at 3:00 p.m. I heard his motion for a stay of execution of the removal order made against him and, at the end of the hearing, I advised counsel that the motion would be denied on the following grounds.
[2] Firstly, in my opinion, the Applicant had not satisfied me that irreparable harm would result if he were removed from Canada. The evidence led by the Applicant in regard to his wife"s health demonstrates possible hardship but not, in my view, irreparable harm.
[3] Secondly, even if I had been satisfied regarding the irreparable harm issue, I nevertheless would have denied the motion. On the one hand, the Applicant was not diligent in bringing his stay application before this Court. Although aware since at least mid-March, if not earlier, that the government fully intended to remove him shortly, the Applicant filed and served his motion on April 26, 2000, only. No reasonable explanation was offered for this delay.
[4] On the other hand, by reason of the lateness of the Applicant"s motion, the motion proceeded for all intents and purposes, as if brought ex parte . I have said in the past and will reiterate that on such a motion, an Applicant has a duty to present to the Court all facts relevant to the determination of his motion, including facts which might not favour him. I am satisfied that the Applicant has not been entirely truthful with regard to the evidence he has adduced. I am of the view that he was not truthful when he stated in his affidavit that he only became aware of the dismissal of his refugee claim in March or April 2000. I am satisfied that he was aware of the dismissal of his claim at the latest by September 1999, and perhaps even found out in 1998, when the Refugee Board served upon him a notice of abandonment.
[5] I find it difficult to believe that the Applicant met his lawyer, Mr. Franklin, in August or September of 1999 to prepare his H & C application, but that he and Mr. Franklin would not have discussed the state of his proceedings before the Refugee Board.
[6] All in all, I am unfortunately left with the impression that the Applicant only provided me with those facts which suited him, not those that were relevant to the determination of his application. As I indicated, for that reason alone, I would have denied his motion.
[7] In closing, I wish to add that at the outset of the hearing, counsel for the Minister conceded that there was a serious issue to be determined, adding that because of the lateness of the motion, he was not in a position to challenge the Applicant on that issue.
[8] For these reasons, the motion for a stay of execution of the removal order was denied.
Marc Nadon
JUDGE
O T T A W A (Ontario)
April 27, 2000.