Federal Court Case Of Velu Nadarajanv Mirc

On March 8th, I attended a hearing at the Federal Court. The case of Velu Nadarajanv Mirc et al. is a case related to a request to defer removal. The H&C application is based solely on the applicant's establishment in Canada.

Summary of the facts: The applicant is a Sri Lankan Tamil who is a failed refugee claimant. He has been living in Canada for just over 10 years and is scheduled to be removed by 8:50pm on the 8th of March 2024. The applicant works as a butcher and a fish cutter at a supermarket in Montreal. He also provides assistance to a senior citizen in Montreal for over the last 5 years.

Key issues: At the hearing, I observed and listened attentively to both the counsel for the applicant, Max Berger, and the counsel for the respondent,
The counsel described the officer as disingenuous as it is said the application will continue to be processed even after the applicant's removal as the applicant would not be able to show any establishment in the 15 months prior to the decision being made if he was deported. The counsel further illustrated that irreparable harm would be suffered by the applicant's employer who said they would have to close the meat section in the supermarket until they found someone with his talent to replace him and they did not know how long that would take. This would result in a loss of income and customers who will potentially go elsewhere. Secondly, irreparable harm would be suffered by the senior citizen who relied heavily on the contributions the applicant had made and described them as “immeasurable” and would not know how to manage life practically and emotionally with his
The respondent argued that a pending H&C application may justify deferral if there is either a threat to personal safety as noted in Newman v Canada or special consideration. As seen in Baron v Canada, H&C applications can amount to special consideration if the H&C application amounts to “exigent personal circumstances” including a situation involving children and the impact of the removal on their health, for example. This does not apply to the applicant. The respondent argues that special consideration must therefore be looked at, bearing in mind the limited discretion granted to the officer. The respondent also looked at the irreparable harm to the senior citizen and the employer and argued that there are social services and resources available to help the senior citizen and the regarding the employer losing the applicant this is simply the reality that exists in the labour force regardless of the reason. The respondent concluded that the applicant knew his removal was imminent since November 30th, 2023, and he could have informed the employer and the senior citizen since