Khurshid Begum Awan v Canada (The Minister Of Public Safety And Emergency Preparedness), 2013 FC 890 (2013)

Parts:Khurshid Begum Awan v Canada (The Minister Of Public Safety And Emergency Preparedness)
Reporting Judge:The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
Docket Number:IMM-5501-13

Federal Court - Khurshid Begum Awan v Canada (The Minister Of Public Safety And Emergency Preparedness)


Date: 20130821

Docket: IMM-5501-13

Citation: 2013 FC 890

Ottawa, Ontario, August 21, 2013

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore








[1] Inherent values of life, human worth and dignity are fully reflected in Canada’s legislation. It is, therefore, important that a mockery, not be made of the legal system, its legal process (by an abuse of such process) and that of the immigration legislative framework.

[2] This matter cannot possibly be understood unless the chronology of the voluminous paper trail of files emanating from both respective parties is comprehensively comprehended.

[3] Although the computer age often relies on twitter communiqués or sensational headlines to transmit information, this matter requires a most comprehensive and considerable amount of background reading and analysis, not suitable for quick fixes of a sensational variety.

[4] Without reading the full background to this matter and the multiple files themselves, the essence is totally missed and, thus, susceptible to a major miscomprehension. From the outset of the case of the Applicant, a complete lack of credibility is immediately apparent upon reading the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Determination Section, dated November 2, 2012, in files MB103153 and MB103155. From the outset to the present, if the full record is simply read, a clear picture emerges that is most different than that brought forward by the Applicant. In Hussain v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , [2000] FCJ No 751 (QL/Lexis), Justice Marc Nadon stated:

[12] … The Applicants seem to be of the view that if they continue to add documents to the record, the credibility findings of the Refugee Board are somehow going to be “reversed” or “forgotten”…

[5] The present matter before the Court is that of a motion, submitted to the Federal Court only yesterday evening, August 20, 2013, in regard to a removal order in respect of the Applicant scheduled for today.

[6] An extensive reading of the file draws note of the following: two respective judges of this Court, Justice Simon Noël and Justice Jocelyne Gagné, have only most recently rendered two respective judgments in this matter. Both draw upon a full recognition, acknowledgment and understanding of the intricacies of the matter subsequent to interim stays having been granted to ensure that the matter will have been fully comprehended. (The two orders of both judges are provided as annexed.)

[7] Exhibit B1 demonstrates that as of July 22, 2013, Dr. Maxime Labelle at the Montreal General Hospital wrote in respect of the Applicant that “the patient is safe to travel by any mode of transportation and is safe to resume all baseline activities of daily living”.

[8] No new evidence of substance has arisen since that time to warrant a change in situation. As a matter of fact, no doctor had submitted an affidavit, as was indicated by Justice Noël for the purposes that would have been previously required for substantiation.

[9] The history of the file clearly demonstrates that, presently, hospitalization occurs an hour before hearings are to take place; and, that in the past, reoccurrent hospitalization, also, was apparent hours before or within days of hearings to be conducted.

[10] The present matter, in its saga, before the Court is, yet, of another motion to stay the removal of the Applicant.

[11] It is important...

To continue reading