Garcia et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al., 2006 FC 311

• Judge: Tremblay-Lamer, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 01, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2006 FC 311;(2006), 289 F.T.R. 77 (FC)

Garcia v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2006), 289 F.T.R. 77 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2006] F.T.R. TBEd. MR.027

Maria Bonnie Arias Garcia et Robert Salgado-Arias et Rodolfo Valdes-Arias (Alias Rodolfo Arias-Garcia) (demandeurs) v. Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration et La Ministre de la Sécurité publique et de la Protection civile (défendeurs)

(IMM-3836-05; 2006 CF 311; 2006 FC 311)

Indexed As: Garcia et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al.

Federal Court

Tremblay-Lamer, J.

March 9, 2006.

Summary:

A Mexican mother and her two children applied for the judicial review of a decision of a removal officer not to grant them the statutory stay provided for by s. 50(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Can.).

The Federal Court allowed the application with respect to one of the children.

Aliens - Topic 1798

Exclusion and expulsion - Deportation and exclusion of persons in Canada - Deportation or removal order - Execution precluded where another judicial order would be violated - The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed an application, pursuant to the Act respecting the Civil Aspects of International and Interprovincial Child Abduction (Que.), for the return of a child, Rodolfo, to Mexico - However, Rodolfo, his mother and a sibling, faced removal from Canada, under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Can.) (IRPA) - The removal officer refused their application for a stay of removal under s. 50(a) IRPA - The Federal Court quashed the decision with respect to Rodolfo but not the others - The removal officer was bound to abide by the temporary stay provided for by s. 50(a) since the Court of Appeal's judgment had a direct effect on the removal order - However, that court's judgment had to be narrowly read - It could not be interpreted as having the effect of giving Rodolfo permanent resident status - That question had to be decided by the proper authority - See paragraphs 1 to 50.

Cases Noticed:

Alexander et al. v. Canada (Solicitor General) (2005), 279 F.T.R. 45; 2005 FC 1147, consd. [para. 21].

Perez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.T.R. Uned. A88; 2005 FC 1317, consd. [para. 25].

Cuskic v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 3; 261 N.R. 73 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 29].

Mobtagha v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1992), 53 F.T.R. 249 (T.D.), consd. [para. 29].

Simoes et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 187 F.T.R. 219 (T.D.), consd. [para. 39].

Adviento v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)(2003), 242 F.T.R. 295; 2003 FC 1430, consd. [para. 40].

Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 161; 44 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 45].

Smith v. R., [1960] S.C.R. 776, refd to. [para. 45].

Louis v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCTD 1344, refd to. [para. 46].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, consd. [para. 47].

Legault v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 4 F.C. 358; 288 N.R. 174; 2002 FCA 125, refd to. [para. 47].

Liyanagamage v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 176 N.R. 4 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

Statutes Noticed:

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, sect. 50(a) [para. 22].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), generally [para. 44].

Counsel:

Jean El Masri, for the applicants;

Ian Demers, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

El Masri Dugal, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicants;

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondents.

This application was heard at Montreal, Quebec, on February 1, 2006, by Tremblay-Lamer, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on March 9, 2006.