Villaneuva v MCI 2010 FC 543

The Court set aside a refusal to defer noting: [35] Nothing in the relevant jurisprudence states that a removals officer cannot or should not take into account backlogs in the system that have led to a long delay in an H&C application. Rather, recent Federal Court jurisprudence suggests that an officer can consider backlogs within the context of a removal order. See Williams v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Page: 15 Preparedness) 2010 FC 274 at paragraph 42. And I note that, in considering a stay application in Harry, Justice Gibson was particularly concerned about backlogs in the system and the Minister’s being “far from diligent in the pursuit of the applicant’s H&C application,” a matter of “particular import in the light of concern for the best interests of the applicants’ Canadian-born child.” See Harry v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 195 F.T.R. 221, [2000] F.C.J. No. 1727 at paragraph 15. In Simmons v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2006] F.C.J. No. 1400, 2006 CarswellNat 2861 at paragraph 8, Justice Harrington, citing relevant authority, expressed his view that an enforcement officer has “the discretion to await the pending decision on the H&C application.”