Pulo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Pulo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

The Court refused to hear the urgent motion because the applicants filed and served the motion at the eleventh hour despite being served with a Direction to Report 17 days earlier, offered no adequate explanation for the delay, and equity requires timely action and fair opportunity for the respondent to prepare; accordingly the motion for an urgent stay was not heard.

Citation
2010 FC 324
Parties
Applicant: Marjan Pulo; Applicant: Redon Pulo
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Immigration Stay of Removal Motion / Motion for Urgent Stay Refused (not Heard)
Outcome
Motion for urgent stay of removal not heard/refused
Legal Topics
Stay of Removal, Pre Removal Risk Assessment, Humanitarian and Compassionate Application, Urgency and Procedural Fairness, Procedural Requirements for Judicial Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Administrative Law Equity Stay of Removal Pre Removal Risk Assessment Humanitarian and Compassionate Application Urgency and Procedural Fairness Procedural Requirements for Judicial Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marjan Pulo

Applicant

Redon Pulo

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Immigration Stay of Removal Motion / Motion for Urgent Stay Refused (not Heard)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should hear an urgent motion for a stay of removal filed on the scheduled removal date
  2. 2 Whether applicants provided adequate explanation for delay in seeking equitable relief
  3. 3 Whether the respondent must be afforded adequate time to prepare a response to a stay application

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to hear the urgent motion because the applicants filed and served the motion at the eleventh hour despite being served with a Direction to Report 17 days earlier, offered no adequate explanation for the delay, and equity requires timely action and fair opportunity for the respondent to prepare; accordingly the motion for an urgent stay was not heard.

Court Disposition

Motion for urgent stay of removal not heard/refused

Orders

  • The applicants’ motion for a stay of removal from Canada currently scheduled for today at 7:10 p.m. will not be heard by this Court today on an urgent basis.