Romans v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Romans v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2001-09-18 Neutral citation 2001 FCA 272 File numbers A-359-01 Notes Digest Decision Content Date: 20010918 Docket: A-359-01 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 272 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. NOËL J.A. SEXTON J.A. BETWEEN: STEVEN ROMANS Appellant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION Respondent Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 18, 2001. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 18, 2001. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DÉCARY J.A. Date: 20010918 Docket: A-359-01 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 272 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. NOËL J.A. SEXTON J.A. BETWEEN: STEVEN ROMANS Appellant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario on September 18, 2001) DÉCARY J.A. [1] We have accepted, for the sake of the discussion, that section 7 of the Charter is engaged by the deportation of a permanent resident pursuant to paragraph 27(1)(d) of the Immigration Act. [2] The fact that the appellant has resided in Canada since early childhood, has no establishment outside of Canada and suffers from chronic paranoid schizophrenia does not give him an absolute right to remain in Canada, that right being recognized by section 6(1) of the Charter to Canadian citizens only. [3] The Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Appeal Division) found, on the basis of the evidence before it, that the appellant's threat to Canadian society should he not be removed from Canada outweighed the anguish of his family as well as all other circumstances in his favour. The Board, at page 7 of its reasons, said the following: It is very hard for the panel to assess the impact on the appellant if he were to be deported from Canada. He is not employed, and he has no spouse or children. His life is held hostage to his mental illness, even when he receives regular medication as he did prior to attending the hearing. He has a loving family whom he rejects solely because of his mental illness. His social worker is the only person with whom he has regular contact when not incarcerated, and that is because she seeks him out in his regular haunts on the downtown streets. He does not choose to take medication, and none appears to be effective in controlling his illness. To the extent that the appellant is aware of his environment at all, the panel finds, on a balance of probabilities, that there will not be undue hardship on the appellant if he were to be deported from Canada. He is not under the regular care of any psychiatrist. Even when the medication is administered regularly, as in periods of incarceration, he is not well. To be blunt, his mental illness, in spite of the broad scope of the Canadian health care system and in spite of a caring, concerned family, has turned him into a street person. If deported, he is unlikely to notice much change in his circumstances. [4] We are satisfied that, in doing so, the Appeal Division did a balancing of competing interests as mandated, albeit in different circumstances, by the Supreme Court of Canada in United States v. Burns, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283 and could, on the evidence before it, reach the conclusion that the deportation of the appellant, in the circumstances of this case, was in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Madam Justice Dawson declined to intervene (2001 FCT 466), and rightly so. [5] The appeal will therefore be dismissed. [6] At the hearing, counsel for the appellant asked for a stay of the execution of the removal order issued against Mr. Romans pending disposition by the Supreme Court of Canada of an application for leave to appeal. Counsel for the respondent did not oppose the application. We are satisfied that an order should issue in the following terms: The execution of the removal order issued against the appellant, Steven Romans, is stayed pursuant to section 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act pending disposition by that Court of the application for leave to appeal and, should the application be granted, pending final disposition of the appeal. This stay order is made subject to the following conditions: 1. An application for leave to appeal shall be filed by the appellant with the Supreme Court of Canada by September 28, 2001; 2. In his application for leave to appeal, the appellant shall inform the Supreme Court of Canada that should leave be granted, he is prepared, if the Court so orders, to file his factum within one month after the date of the order granting leave and to have the appeal heard at the earliest opportunity; 3. Should the appellant fail to comply with this order by September 28, 2001, the order will immediately be deemed to be no longer in force. "Robert Décary" J.A.