Thursday, January 27, 2011


One is left to wonder why this appellant was treated so leniently while others with lesser offences are ordered deported. Why is a person with 27 criminal convictions, some of them serious, allowed to remain in Canada as a public charge? Why was there no evidence of the significant resources that are necessary to deal with the appellant?  Why was CBSA waiting for the appellant to amass 27 convictions before proceeding?  Did she receive preferential treatment? These are important questions that should lead to a reassessment of how we deal with those convicted in Canada multiple times.

Skyers v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)

Marlene Angella Skyers, appellant, and

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness,


[2010] I.A.D.D. No. 681

[2010] D.S.A.I. no 681

No. TA9-01777
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada

Immigration Appeal Division

Toronto, Ontari

Panel: Kenneth D. MacLean

Heard: April 8, 2010.

Decision: August 25, 2010.

(47 paras.)

Removal Order

Reasons for Decision

1 Marlene Angella Skyers (the appellant) is a 34-year-old citizen of Jamaica, born on April 21, 1976, who became a permanent resident of Canada in September 15, 1986 at age 10 years.

2 On October 16, 2008, the appellant was convicted of two counts of assault with a weapon contrary to section 267(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. A conviction for assault with a weapon is punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years. In this case the appellant received a sentence of 10 days in jail on top of 20 days pre-sentence custody and 12 months probation.

3 According to section 36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible to Canada on grounds of serious criminality for having been convicted in Canada of an offense under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, or of an offense under an act of Parliament for which a term of imprisonment of more than six months has been imposed.

4 On January 21, 2009, the appellant was subject to Admissibility Hearing before R. Stratigopoulos, a Member of the Immigration Division, who found the appellant to be a person described by section 36(1)(a) of the IRPA where after Member Stratigopoulos made a Deportation Order against her.

5 The appellant filed Notice of Appeal that same day, said notice being received by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) on January 28, 2009.

6 On February 19, 2009, the Immigration Division disclosed the transcript of the Admissibility Hearing in the documents upon which it was based.

7 On March 17, 2010, Minister's counsel (the respondent) filed disclosure which included RCMP CPIC and ICON reports of the appellant's history of criminal convictions, police occurrence reports, probations documents, social services information and related immigration documents.1

8 The appellant filed disclosure on March 11, 17, 19, and 25, 2010 which were entered as exhibits A-1 through A-4 respectively.

9 The panel heard the testimony of the appellant and her aunt (formerly her legal guardian), Desrine Barrows, and her daughter, Jillisa Skyers.

10 The appellant had been appointed a Designated Representative, Ms. Susan Woolner, who informed the panel that, based on her dealings with the appellant, it was her opinion that the appellant understood the circumstances that brought her to the hearing and that she comprehended the nature of the proceedings. The panel notes that at the time of the hearing the appellant had been detained on immigration hold for approximately one year and that while incarcerated she had been receiving medical treatment and was at that time compliant with her medication. The panel formed the opinion that the appellant was capable of giving sworn testimony, which was heard.

Submissions of the Parties

11 The panel requested and received detailed written submissions from the parties which it has considered in their entirety but which are only paraphrased below (out of order).

Respondent's Submissions

12 The respondent submitted (in reply to the appellant's written submissions that:
• - The removal order is valid in law.

• - The appellant has amassed some 27 convictions over 11 years.

• - The appellant's criminality is escalating.

• - The appellant has not complied with orders of the court and with the conditions of her immigration bond (the appellant was at the time of the hearing in detention having been taken into immigration hold after violating the terms of her release).

• - The appellant has been non-compliant in taking mediation she has been prescribed for her medical condition.

• - The appellant's medical condition is ill-defined.

• - The appellant's length of time in Canada, 24 years, is the only Ribic2 factor weighing in her favour.
• - The appellant is poorly established in Canada.

• - The appellant is poorly educated, has a minimal work history, has amassed no identifiable assets and is not a contributing member of society.

• - The appellant has a father (with whom she has not marinated contact) and a mother (who she has not seen since 1993) in Jamaica.

• - The majority of her family is in Canada with whom she has had intermittent contact, some emotional but no financial dependency.

• - The appellant has given birth two seven children, three of whom were seized at birth.

• - None of the children live with the appellant. Several are no longer minors. Given their various custodial situations their interests are not tied to the appellant presence in Canada.

• - The possibility of future familial support must be considered in the context of its relative absence in respect of the development of her criminality or her obtaining treatment for her mental illness.

• - The community support has previously been available to the appellant but it has not contributed to the correction of her behaviour nor is it likely that will help in her future rehabilitation.

• - The appellant is not old and speaks the language of Jamaica.

• - The nature of familial support that might be available to her in Jamaica is unknown.

• - The appellant has no employment or education history in Jamaica; however, she does not have much of one in Canada either.

• - Evidence of the inferiority of the health care system in Jamaica relative to Canada was produced by counsel. The appellant has had access to the Canadian mental health care system but has not used it. The availability of mental health care in and of itself is not a determinative factor for this appellant.

• - The Ribic factors on balance weigh against the appellant.

• - The appellant is unlikely to be compliant with the conditions of a stay.

• - The hardship she will face is not disproportionate and there are insufficient grounds to grant equitable relief.

• - The appeal should be dismissed.

13 The respondent reminds the panel of the words of Kelen J. in Grant who wrote, at paragraph 8, that:
• A fundamental principle of immigration law is that non-citizens do not have a right to remain in Canada. Canada is not and will not become a haven for criminals. If a non-citizen commits a crime they are subject to the loss of their right to remain in Canada. The jurisprudence has established that a mental or other illness does not give a non-Canadian the right to remain in Canada. The cases have also established that criminal activities, drug addition, and illnesses cannot be the foundation for a claim of irreparable harm. Evidence proferred by the applicant regarding irreparable harm that will result from his separation from his children, separation from his treatment for PTSD, and lack of establishment in Jamaica is speculative at best, and has been addressed at length by the IAD in its original decision.

The Appellant's Written Submissions

14 Appellant's counsel submitted (including her response to the respondent's submissions noted above) that:

• - The appellant has been diagnosed with both a bi-polar condition and more recently with schizophrenia.

• - Schizophrenia is a "devastating mental illness" and probably the most distressing and disabling of the severe mental disorders, (referring to an article filed in Exhibit A-1).

• - The appellant has responded well to her current medication regime.

• - Medication is crucial to treatment and relapse rates are high when discontinued.

• - Treatment is not curative and patients require long-term treatment plans.

• - Family support is crucial.

• - The appellant is receiving community support and assistance from the Rouge Valley Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) Team.

• - The appellant is no longer in immigration detention and is residing with her aunt, Desrine Barrows.

• - The appellant is compliant with the conditions of her release and the instruction of the ACT Team.

• - While her criminal offences are numerous, they have not been particularly serious when viewed in terms of the Courts sanction.

• - The appellant's criminality must be viewed in the context of her personal circumstances and mental illness.

• - The appellant has been in Canada for 23 years, since she was 10 years old.

• - The appellant has made one trip to Jamaica in 1993 and has no contact with anyone there since then.

• - She was educated in Canada.

• - All her immediate family is in Toronto.

• - The appellant has been dependent on social assistance.

• - The appellant would face serious hardship if removed to Jamaica given her vulnerability because of her mental illness.

• - The Jamaican health care system is limited in its ability to treat people with mental illness (exhibit A-1, various articles concerning the treatment of mental illness in Jamaica, pages 31-84).

• - The appellant would face treatment interruption, would have no way of supporting herself and would face homelessness and discrimination.

• - Mentally ill and homeless people are frequently subject to violence.

• - Deportees to Jamaica are shunned, have difficulty securing accommodation and employment, and their options are limited if they have not family support available to them.

• - The appellant's previous failure to comply with immigration release (and Court orders) reflected the absence of community support which she has now accessed through the ACT Team.

• - There is more to establishment than assets.

• - The custodial situation of her children does not denigrate from their best interests.
• - The relative inferiority of the Jamaican health care system is not the issue, rather it is the hardship the appellant would face if removed and forced to seek treatment and medication and support in that system.

• - Grant is not applicable to this matter as it dealt with a stay of removal application and the tripartite test in a stay motion (Toth) is distinguishable from the test to be applied on equitable appeal before the Board.

15 The appellant seeks relief by way of a three-year stay of removal with conditions, including conditions pertaining to her treatment. The appellant understands what a stay of removal means and the consequences that would flow from her failure to comply with any conditions imposed. The appellant submits that she is a good candidate for a stay.


16 For the reasons set out below the removal order is stayed for four years with conditions.


17 The appellant brings her appeal pursuant to sections 67(1)(c) and 68(1) of IRPA. The analytical framework for determining the appeal includes the nonexclusive factors first outlined in Ribic and endorsed in the Supreme Court of Canada decisions in Chieu and Al Sagban.3 These factors include the seriousness of her criminal convictions, the possibility of her rehabilitation, the length of time the appellant has been in Canada, her degree of establishment in Canada, the impact the her removal from Canada would have on members of the appellant's family, the family and community support available to the appellant and the hardship the appellant would face in the country to which she would likely be removed.

Seriousness of Criminal Convictions

18 The appellant did not contest the legal validity of the deportation order and, on the basis of her criminal record, the panel finds that the removal order made against her was valid in law.

19 The appellant has an extensive criminal record beginning in 1997. As detailed in Exhibit R-1, the appellant's record includes the following criminal convictions:

• - 1997 November, Theft under $5,000 and Assault with Intent to Resist Arrest (suspended sentence & 1 year probation);

• - 2000 April, two counts of Uttering Threats & Fail to Attend court (5 days jail concurrent plus 5 days consecutive & 12 months probation);

• - 2000 June, three counts of Assault (30 days jail concurrent);

• - 2005 August, Assault & Fail to Attend court (7 days & 12 days Pre-sentence custody, 1 day consecutive & 1 year probation);

• - 2006, two counts of mischief under $5,000, Possession of a Substance, Obstruction of Justice & Failure to Re-attend Court (suspended sentence on top of 88 days pre-sentence custody concurrent & 12 months probation);

• - 2007 April, Theft under $5,000 and Assault while Resisting Arrest (Suspended sentence & 12 months probation);

• - 2007 May, Failure to Re-attend Court & Failure to Comply with Probation (1 day jail);

• - 2007 June, two counts of Possession of a Substance, and Mischief under $5,000 (1 day jail on to of five days pre-sentence custody concurrent & 1 day jail on top of five days pre-sentence custody);

• - 2007 November, Failure to Comply with Probation (3 days jail on top of 2 days per-sentence custody);

• - 2008 March, Failure to Comply with Probation 3 days jail on to of 2 days pre-sentence custody); and

• - 2008 October, 2 counts assault with a Weapon and 4 counts Mischief under $5,000 (10 days jail on top of 20 days pre-sentence custody concurrent, 12 months probation concurrent).

20 Certainly a long litany of offences. However, the appellant has received very lenient treatment by the Courts with her longest sentence being 88 days (counting pre-sentence custody).

21 Turning to the referable offences of assault with a weapon, the Police Incident Report of September 27, 2008 describes a number of incidents for which the appellant was charged with the 4 counts of Mischief under $5,000 and 2 counts of Assault with Weapon. As described, having been denied entry to a shelter the appellant went on a destructive rampage during which, by various means, numerous building windows were broken and the owner of a restaurant who was defending his property from damage was assaulted with a chair and swung at with box cutter knife.

22 While the appellant's reportable convictions meet the statutory test of serious criminality and her criminal history speaks to a pattern of recidivism, the panel considers that there is a significant mitigating factor which reduces the significant negative weight that would otherwise attach to such a criminal history.

Ribic Factors

23 While the respondent is correct in his position that the Ribic factors balance against the appellant; however, in the panel's opinion, not as heavily as suggested. The fact that the appellant has been in Canada since she was 10 years old favours her remaining in Canada. Admittedly she has a limited degree of establishment and considered in the context of her accomplishments and her assets she has very little to speak of.

24 The appellant came to Canada in 1987 along with two sisters accompanying their maternal grandmother who had adopted them sometime in the 1980's. They all initially came to live in Calgary with an aunt, Ms. Desrine (and her children). The appellant claimed to have little memory of her biological mother4 and she never had contact with her biological father, both of whom the appellant believes still reside in Jamaica.

25 In 1989, after having moved into a house away from her aunt, the appellant and her sisters were left without parental support when her grandmother died. The appellant was then 13 years old and she testified that her aunt travelled to Texas to marry and that she and her sisters were left on their own. Her aunt moved to Toronto in 1989 the appellant came to live with her there in November of that year.

26 The appellant testified that while she started school in Toronto she only attended for two months because she became pregnant at the age of 14, giving birth to her daughter Jillisa in 1991. The appellant has only complete Grade 9. The appellant testified that she lived on her own with a boyfriend and cared for Jillisa until 1999 when the Children's Aid Society (CAS) intervened and took her into custody. The appellant testified that she gave birth to six more children in 1995, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005 and 2008. After the birth of her last child she had a tubal ligation to prevent further pregnancies.

27 Jillisa is now 19 years old and lives on her own. The children born in 1995, 1999 and 2001 live with their biological father. The children born in 2003 and 2005 were taken by the CAS and put into foster homes. The last child was apprehended at the hospital and has been adopted. The appellant admitted that it has been some time since she has seen her children. The appellant testified that she has maintained some contact with Jillisa. She testified that she last saw Jilisa in March, when she and her aunt, Ms. Desrine, travelled to visit her at the Vanier centre where she was then in custody and at the time of the hearing.

28 The panel considered Jillisa's letter of support5 and testimony. It is evident to the panel that after Jillisa was taken into custody by the CAS she suffered significant abandonment issues which she has not fully resolved in respect of her relationship with her mother. Jillisa eventually came to reside with Ms. Desrine with whom she stayed until 2009 when she moved to Ajax with her boyfriend. Jillisa admitted to not having much of a relationship with her mother; however, she claimed that she would like a relationship and to give her the support she needs as she struggles to deal with her illness. As observed by the respondent, Jillsa does evidence some affection for the appellant and expressed her willingness to forgive her.

29 The historical evidence of the appellant's mental health is not good. However, she testified that in 1999, after the CAS took Jillisa and her two other children into custody, she began roaming the streets and started to smoke crack cocaine. The appellant testified that she was diagnosed with schizophrenia after the birth of her last child although she was not really certain after which child she was diagnosed. There are no contemporaneous hospital records. However, the panel considered the pre-sentence report prepared in October 2008 and notes that the appellant reported to the probation officer and that she had been diagnosed with schizophrenia three years earlier, which would put the possible date of diagnosis in 2005 around the time of the birth of her sixth child.

30 Throwing further light on the appellant's past, the probation officer reported that the appellant admitted to using crack cocaine daily for five years prior to the interview and to "drinking a lot," almost daily. Checking with St. Michael's Hospital where the appellant had sought treatment, that psychiatric records were not found. The probation officer's 2008 conclusion was that of likely serious mental health concerns and he recommended a psychiatric assessment which, it appears, was never performed.

31 Ms. Desrine testified that after the birth of her child in 1999 the appellant started to act strangely. She testified that they took her to the hospital but were told she was okay and that perhaps it was just stress. The appellant's condition deteriorated such that the CAS intervened as the children were being neglected. Eventually the appellant was admitted to the Clarke (CAMH) for three days, but that she was discharged without any diagnosis. Ms. Desrine testified that it was not until three years later that she spoke to a doctor at the Toronto East General Hospital and learned that the appellant had been diagnosed as bi-polar. She claimed that she learned of the schizophrenia diagnosis from the appellant's then Designated Representative when she attended the appellant's detention review in March.

32 While the evidence of her mental health condition is not good prior to 2009, requiring the panel to draw certain inferences, clearly by the time of the hearing she has been assessed and diagnosed with schizophrenia. Counsel has disclosed considerable documentary evidence on schizophrenia which the panel has considered. Furthermore, the panel has participated in ongoing professional development training which dealt with the diagnosis and presentation of schizophrenia, its treatment, problems of medication compliance and prognosis. The panel also dealt with a fair number of removal order appeals where appellants have been diagnosed with schizophrenia.

33 Based on the available evidence, the panel finds that a likely nexus exists between the appellant 's criminality, which began in 1997, and her socioeconomic circumstances, lack of parenting, poverty, early and serial childbearing, cocaine and alcohol addiction and likely undiagnosed bi-polar and/or schizophrenia. Clearly the appellant's circumstances are such as to induce pathos, and while her circumstances do not excuse her criminal conduct, they certainly go a long way to explaining it.

34 In this context, having considered the available evidence, the panel finds that the appellant is suffering from serious mental illness. She is currently under medical supervision and taking Risperdol, an antipsychotic mediation used to treat schizophrenia. The appellant has been receiving the medication by injection. She is taking other antipsychotic medication. The appellant is under the supervision of the ACT Team in Ajax where she is residing, as a condition of her release with her aunt, Ms. Desrine.

35 At the time of the hearing the appellant was complaint with taking her medication. Previously her symptoms, which include agitation, violent behaviour, self-medication through drug and alcohol abuse) and hearing voices will return. The appellant appears to have good insight into her condition and she reported that on medication she feels more in control, although she reported some difficulty in organizing her thoughts. This insight is subject to continued compliance with mediation as the panel is aware that when patients feel better they often stop taking their medication which restarts the downward spiral leading to acute psychotic episodes.

36 The appellant expressed her remorse at her conduct, stating that she felt badly and that what she did was not right. The appellant testified that she would not re-offend, claiming that now she would be living outside Toronto in Ajax where she would no longer be around bad influences.

37 The appellant testified that her plan was to stay clean of cocaine and continue her treatment living her life in Ajax. She thought that she eventually might be able to upgrade her education by getting a GED.6 Ms. Desrine testified that the appellant is doing well on treatment at Vanier and that the plan was that she would live with her as is presently the case. She also testified that she would provide support by taking the appellant to appointments with the ACT Team, her physicians, social workers and dietician. She also testified that she would take her to her appointments at the Greater Toronto Enforcement Centre.

38 The respondent is sceptical of the appellant's ability to rehabilitate and be complaint with the terms of her stay given that she has failed to comply with the reporting requirements of both her probation order and previous immigration release. The panel would agree that taken on its face the evidence supports this conclusion. However, the panel must also consider that on previous times the appellant was not diagnosed, she was non-compliant with medication and using crack cocaine and alcohol. The situation appear to have changed and the evidence of her condition while she has been on medication while at Vanier gives the panel some confidence that if the appellant can stick to her plan, remain compliant with medication, lives with her aunt (away from negative influences) in Ajax and stays away from both alcohol and illegal drugs, she has some possibility of rehabilitation. The key to everything is compliance with her treatment plan and medication regime.

39 While the appellant has seven children she is largely estranged from them and they are cared for by others or in the case of Jillisa, independent. Their interests are not engaged to any significant degree.

40 Turning to hardship, it is not clear that anyone would be unduly affected by the applicant's removal. She is not in any relationships. No one depends on her for support. Certainly her aunt and Jillisa would be sad at her departure but they would not face any undue hardship.

41 The panel cannot so conclude in respect of the appellant herself. The panel is satisfied that if removed the appellant would likely face undue, disproportionate and undeserved hardship. The seriousness of her criminality does not out weigh the potential for hardship in this case. The appellant is seriously mentally ill. She requires medication, she is unemployed and reliant on Ontario Disability Support Payments to support herself in Canada. Her medication is no doubt provided by the Trillium Plan in Ontario. In general, that deportees are treated poorly in Jamaica is an unfortunate consequence that provides no shield from removal. The fact that the healthcare system in Jamaica is different or even not as good as the system in Canada is not the condition of equitable relief; however, in this case, the panel is persuaded based on the documentary evidence in respect of the treatment of the mentally ill in Jamaica that the appellant would be at serious risk if removed. She would have no support in Jamaica (Ms. Desrine is of the opinion that her mother is in a bad way and in no position to support her) and she would be unemployed and virtually unemployable given the likelihood that her condition could be expected to deteriorate in the absence of the support she is currently receiving in Canada from the various sources identified above.


42 The panel gave careful consideration to the oral testimony and all of the submissions and fully considered the impact of the same on the issues in this appeal in the context of the evidence as a whole. In the fullness of that context and in the totality of the evidence, the panel has determined that the appellant has met the onus to establish to the panel's satisfaction that sufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances of the case.

43 The panel finds that a longer stay of removal is warranted given the challenges faced by the appellant in addressing her mental health issues and the need to demonstrate that the possibility of rehabilitation exists.

44 The panel stays the removal order for four years with conditions including discretionary conditions that the panel feels are warranted under the circumstances.

45 The appellant is advised to carefully review ALL the conditions of this stay with her counsel to ensure initial and continued compliance with ALL the requirements. In particular, the appellant's attention is directed to requirement to keep the peace and be of good behaviour which has been interpreted such as to require that she not be in violation of any statute of Parliament, a province or municipal by-laws.

46 The panel cautions the appellant that if she appears before another member of the Appeal Division in the future because she has been convicted of new criminal offences or because she has ignored other conditions of her stay, she may find her stay cancelled and be facing deportation from Canada.

47 Furthermore, should the appellant be convicted of an offence that brings her under the definition of serious criminality, the IAD will loose its jurisdiction, pursuant to section 68(4) of IRPA, her stay will be automatically cancelled by operation of law and she will be deported.



The removal order in this appeal is stayed. This stay is made on the following conditions - the appellant must:

• Inform the Canada Border Services Agency (the "Agency") and the Immigration Appeal Division in writing in advance of any change in your address.
• The address of the Agency is:

Canada Border Services Agency, The Greater Toronto

Enforcement Centre

6900 Airport Road, Entrance 2B, P.O. Box 290

Mississauga, Ontario

L4V 1E8.

• The address of the Immigration Appeal Division is:

74 Victoria Street, Suite 400

Toronto, Ontario

M5C 3C7.
• [1] Provide a copy of your passport or travel document to the Agency or, if you do not have a passport or travel document, complete an application for a passport or a travel document and to provide the application to the Agency.
• [2] Apply for an extension of the validity period of any passport or travel document before it expires, and provide a copy of the extended passport or document to the Agency.
[3] Not commit any criminal offences.
• [4] If charged with a criminal offence, immediately report that fact in writing to the Agency.
• [5] If convicted of a criminal offence, immediately report that fact in writing to the Agency and the Immigration Appeal Division.
• [6] Provide all information, notices and documents (the "documents") required by the conditions of the stay by hand; by regular or registered mail; by courier or priority post to the Canada Border Services Agency, 6900 Airport Road, P.O. Box 290, Entrance 2B, Mississauga, Ontario, L4V 1E8. It is the responsibility of the appellant to ensure that the documents are received by the Agency within any time period required by a condition of stay.
• [7] Provide all information, notices and documents (the "documents") required by the conditions of the stay by hand; by regular or registered mail; by courier or priority post to the Immigration Appeal Division, 74 Victoria Street, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, M5C 3C7; or by fax to the Immigration Appeal Division at (416) 954-1165. Include your Immigration Appeal Division file number. It is the responsibility of the appellant that the documents are received by the Immigration Appeal Division within any time period required by a condition of the stay.

• [8] Report to the Agency at 6900 Airport Road, Entrance 2B, Mississauga, Ontario on Friday February 25, 2011 between 7:30 a.m. to 16:00 p.m., and every six (6) months after that date on the following dates:

August 26, 2011

February 24, 2012

August 24, 2012

February 22, 2013

August 23, 2013

February 21, 2014

The appellant shall report in person (with a written report)

The reports are to contain details of the appellant's:

• - current living arrangements;

• - marital status including common-law relationships;

• - attendance at any educational institution and any change in that attendance;

• [9] Engage in or continue supervision and counselling with the Rouge Valley Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) Team. (Note: If you withdraw your consent to the foregoing condition, you must bring an application in writing to the Immigration Appeal Division forthwith to have this condition removed.)
• [10] Make reasonable efforts to maintain yourself in such condition that:
• a) your schizophrenia will not cause you to conduct yourself in a manner dangerous to yourself or anyone else; and

• b) it is not likely you will commit further offences.
• [11] Not knowingly associate with individuals who have a criminal record or who are engaged in criminal activity, except contact that might result while attending meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous, or any other drug or alcohol rehabilitation program.
• [12] Not own or possess offensive weapons or imitations of offensive weapons.

• [13] Respect all parole conditions and any court orders.

  [14] Refrain from the illegal use or sale of drugs.
• [15] Remain under the care and supervision of your treating physician and remain compliant with all medication prescribed.


Take notice that the Immigration Appeal Division will reconsider the case on or about the 26th day of August 2014, or at such other date as it determines, at which time it may change or cancel any non-prescribed conditions imposed, or it may cancel the stay and then allow or dismiss the appeal. Until your final reconsideration is decided (or your stay is otherwise ended), your stay remains in effect and you must comply with the conditions of your stay, including advising the Agency and the Immigration Appeal Division in writing before any change in your address.

The Immigration Appeal Division may contact you by letter in advance of final reconsideration to ask you to provide written confirmation that you have complied with the conditions of stay.


This stay of removal is cancelled and your appeal is terminated by operation of law and you may be removed from Canada if you are convicted of another offence referred to in subsection 36(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sentence of more than six months imposed or punishable by term of imprisonment of at least ten years) before your case has been finally reconsidered.

"Kenneth D. MacLean"

26 August 2010

No comments: