Zolfiqar v. Canada
IMM-6021-98
Rothstein J.
2/12/98
9 pp.
Application for interim injunction in action to enjoin Minister from deporting plaintiff immediately-In action, plaintiff seeking to demonstrate Charter requiring process for removing person asserting risk of torture should include risk assessment and that current process does not-Plaintiff arguing that if risk assessment determined risk of torture, Charter requiring he not be deported to country where risk present-Plaintiff Tajik from Afghanistan-Granted landing as Convention refugee in 1988-Convicted of importing heroin in 1995 and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment-Declared danger to public in 1996 and deportation order issued in 1997-Paroled in October 1998-Removal scheduled for November 1998-Filed application for judicial review and stay of deportation order-On November 12, 1998, Blais J. denied stay application on basis plaintiff would not suffer irreparable harm if removed to Afghanistan and balance of convenience favoured Minister-Upon notification of that decision, plaintiff attempted, but failed, to obtain favourable decision in Ontario Court General Division, as considered forum shopping at its worst-Thereupon action instituted with present request for interim injunction-Application dismissed-Plaintiff herein in effect seeking reconsideration of Blais J.'s decision-Two new documents produced by plaintiff disclose no evidence not before Blais J., and even if they did, could have been obtained for those proceedings-No effort made to defer hearing of stay application to permit counsel to obtain further evidence-"New" application not new and could have been obtained for purposes of stay application in judicial review proceedings-Blais J.'s decision plaintiff would not suffer irreparable harm if removed to Afghanistan must stand-Proper administration of justice requiring his decision be accepted by parties and not be relitigated-Unseemly and inappropriate for party to engage in process of judge shopping with intent of obtaining conflicting results between judges of same Court on same facts of same case-Court must maintain open and ready access, especially in serious cases such as applications to stay deportation orders-However, that important purpose must not be debased by repetitious applications involving forum shopping and judge shopping-Application herein abuse of process-Costs awarded to defendants on solicitor and client basis-Although unlikely defendants will recover costs, Court should be on record as expressing itself strongly with respect to inappropriateness of present proceedings.