Diallo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Diallo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Even assuming a serious issue existed, there was no evidence of likely irreparable harm because the applicant would be removed to the United States; combined with the late filing and the applicant's absence, the balance of convenience did not favour a stay, so the motion for a stay of removal was dismissed.

Citation
2003 FC 866
Parties
Applicant / Plaintiff: Lancine Diallo; Respondent / Defendant: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Immigration Removal / Stay of Deportation; Judicial Review and Humanitarian and Compassionate Application / Interlocutory Motion for Stay of Removal (urgent/in Extremis)
Outcome
Motion dismissed; stay of removal denied.
Legal Topics
Stay of Removal, Deportation, Humanitarian and Compassionate Grounds, Judicial Review, Irreparable Harm, Interim Relief
Source Language
English
Immigration Administrative Law Refugee Law Stay of Removal Deportation Humanitarian and Compassionate Grounds Judicial Review Irreparable Harm +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lancine Diallo

Applicant / Plaintiff

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Immigration Removal / Stay of Deportation; Judicial Review and Humanitarian and Compassionate Application / Interlocutory Motion for Stay of Removal (urgent/in Extremis)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tripartite test for interim relief (serious issue, irreparable harm, balance of convenience) is met
  2. 2 Whether removal to the United States gives rise to a risk of irreparable harm
  3. 3 Whether the motion filed in extremis and the applicant's absence justify dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

Even assuming a serious issue existed, there was no evidence of likely irreparable harm because the applicant would be removed to the United States; combined with the late filing and the applicant's absence, the balance of convenience did not favour a stay, so the motion for a stay of removal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; stay of removal denied.

Orders

  • Motion dated May 27, 2003 dismissed; applicant's removal is not stayed.