Yousif v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-2511-98
Teitelbaum J.
23/7/98
11 pp.
Application for prohibition, injunction of immigration adjudication inquiry pending application for leave, judicial review-Applicant subject of immigration inquiry-Allegedly member of inadmissible class because convicted of offences in United States of America which, if committed in Canada, punishable by ten years' imprisonment or more, and facing charge of murder in first-degree in State of Illinois, offence punishable by death if convicted-Additionally, extradition proceeding to face first degree murder charge pending-Applicant seeking to prohibit inquiry on basis constituting abuse of process and effectively double jeopardy-Court can only issue prohibition, injunction against continuation of inquiry if satisfied adjudicator about to do something beyond jurisdiction as contrary to law or to Constitution: Blanusa v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1989), 27 F.T.R. 107 (F.C.T.D.)-As no evidence decision-maker exceeding jurisdiction or acting contrary to law, prohibition could not be granted-As to alternative request for injunction, tripartite test for determining whether interlocutory injunctions should be granted established in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311 applied-No decision made after first inquiry started-After start of first inquiry, respondent asked for withdrawal of direction for inquiry because of commencement of extradition proceedings-As no decision, other than to terminate first inquiry made, applicant not facing double jeopardy-Commencement of "second" inquiry after withdrawal, termination of first inquiry not abuse of process-Inquiry pursuant to Immigration Act, s. 27(1), (2) permitted pursuant to s. 34-Multiplicity of proceedings, i.e. inquiry and extradition, not abuse of process-Holding of "second" inquiry not abuse of process neither in itself nor taking into account issue of extradition proceedings-Applicant failed to show arguable case-Evidence of irreparable harm purely speculative-No evidence as to what may happen to applicant if decided should be removed from Canada-Mere continuation of immigration inquiry, and result thereof, even if issuance of deportation order, not irreparable harm-Removal from Canada, as result of being illegally in Canada not irreparable harm-Application denied-Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, ss. 27(1) (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (3rd Supp.), c. 30, s. 4; S.C. 1992, c. 47, s. 78; c. 49, s. 16; 1995, c. 15, s. 5), (2) (as am. by S.C. 1992, c. 47, s. 78; c. 49, s. 16), 34.