Eddy v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
- Citation
- 2013 FC 1233
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 9 December 2013
- Posture
- Immigration Stay of Removal / Motion for Stay of Removal (dismissed)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 9 December 2013
- Posture
- Immigration Stay of Removal / Motion for Stay of Removal (dismissed)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application for a stay of removal was dismissed because the last-minute nature of the motion deprived the respondent and the court of adequate time to prepare and because a stay is an extraordinary remedy requiring a full, reasoned analysis which could not be conducted on the record presented.
Court disposition
Application for stay of removal dismissed
Orders
- The applicant’s application for a stay of removal is dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
OPAGA AKOUMA STÉPHANE EDDY
Applicant Counsel: Salif SangaréMINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondent Counsel: Evan Liosis; William F. Pentney03
Procedural history
Posture
Immigration Stay of Removal / Motion for Stay of Removal (dismissed)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether a last-minute motion for a stay of removal merits an injunction
- 02
Whether the court should grant a stay when the respondent and the court lack adequate time to prepare
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant filed a last-minute motion seeking a stay of removal to Gabon scheduled for December 10, 2013 at 3:30 p.m.
- Respondent
- Respondent opposed the stay, arguing that last-minute motions prevent adequate preparation by counsel and the court and that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy requiring in-depth analysis
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Matadeen v. MCI, IMM-3164-00, June 22, 2000 (FCTD) / Federal Court practice
An injunction (stay) is an extraordinary remedy that requires an in-depth analysis and sufficient time to reach a reasoned judgment.
- 02
Federal Court precedents and practice (noted by Shore J.)
Last-minute motions for stays of removal prejudice the respondent and impede the court's ability to have a full record for decision-making.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application for a stay of removal was dismissed because the last-minute nature of the motion deprived the respondent and the court of adequate time to prepare and because a stay is an extraordinary remedy requiring a full, reasoned analysis which could not be conducted on the record presented.
Obiter and limits
- The court has repeatedly warned counsel (Salif Sangaré) to cease filing last-minute stay motions.
- Last-minute practices decrease opportunities to have everything before the Court to rule on the case.
Court disposition
Application for stay of removal dismissed
- The applicant’s application for a stay of removal is dismissed.
Source and reliance status
Federal Court · 9 December 2013
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Federal Court
Judgment· 9 December 2013
Eddy v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2013-12-09 Neutral citation 2013 FC 1233 File numbers IMM-7294-13 Decision Content Date: 20131209 Docket: IMM-7294-13 Citation: 2013 FC 1233 [UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION] Ottawa, Ontario, December9, 2013 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore BETWEEN: OPAGA AKOUMA STÉPHANE EDDY Applicant and
MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1] The applicant filed a motion application for a stay of removal scheduled for December 10, 2013, at 3:30 p.m. to Gabon. [2] The Court issued an oral Direction today in this regard. [3] The Court has held on numerous occasions that last‑minute motions for a stay of removal require the respondent to draft his submissions without adequate preparation and also do not facilitate the work of the Court, thus decreasing the opportunities to have everything before the Court to rule on the case. An injunction (a stay) is an extraordinary remedy that warrants an in‑depth analysis (see Matadeen c MCI, IMM-3164-00, June 22, 2000 (FCTD)) with sufficient time to arrive at a reasoned judgment taking into account the consequences that flow from this exceptional measure. [4] Salif Sangaré has been warned a number of times to cease this last‑minute practice.
ORDER THE COURT ORDERS that the applicant’s application for a stay of removal is dismissed. “Michel M.J. Shore” Judge Certified true translation Mary Jo Egan, LLB
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-7294-13 STYLE OF CAUSE: OPAGA AKOUMA STÉPHANE EDDY v MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO, UNDER RULE 369
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: SHORE J. DATED: DECEMBER 9, 2013 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY: Salif Sangaré
FOR THE APPLICANT Evan Liosis
FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Salif Sangaré Counsel Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE APPLICANT William F. Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec
FOR THE RESPONDENT
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.