 
 
 
 IAD File No. / N
o de dossier de la SAI: TA9-23354 Client ID No. / N
o ID client: 2236-2082 
 
   
Reasons and Decision − Motifs et décision 
 
REMOVAL ORDER   
 Appellant(s) 
MILTON WINTER Appelant(e)(s)                Respondent 
The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Intimé(e)  
Le ministre de la Sécurité publique et de la Protection civile        Date(s) and Place of Hearing 
April 5, 2011 Date(s) et lieu de l’audience  
Toronto, Ontario   
   
  Date of Decision 
April 15, 2011 Date de la décision  
   
   
  Panel 
D.J.T. Mungovan Tribunal  
   
   
  Counsel for the Appellant(s) 
JoeXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and Solicitor Conseil(s) de l’appelant(e) / des appelant(e)(s)  
   
   
  Counsel for the Minister 
XXXXXXXXXX Conseil du ministre  
    
 
2011 CanLII 73308 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI: TA9-23354 Client ID No. / N
o ID client: 2236-2082   
 1
 
Reasons for Decision 
 Introduction [1] This is an appeal by the appellant, XXXXXXXXXXXXX,
1 from a removal order dated November 30, 2009, issued against him by XXXXXXXXX of the Immigration Division who found him inadmissible pursuant to paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
2 (IRPA). The appellant had been convicted in 20 09 of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to subsection 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act ,
3 for which the appellant received a conditional sentence consis ting of a term of imprisonment of 9 months served in the community and, in addition, he was ordered to abstain from the purchase, possession and consumption of drugs, except in acco rdance with a medical prescription, to obey a curfew, and to not attend Sachigo Lake First Nation Community without permission of Chief and Council, and to seek and maintain employm ent, if feasible. The appeal is based on subsection 63(3) of the IRPA. Background [2] The appellant’s criminal record is as follows: 
DATE AND PLACE OF DISPOSITION CHARGE DISPOSITION 
1990-11-08 WINNIPEG MAN ASSAULT SEC 266 CC 14 DAYS & PROBATION 1 YR  
1993-02-10 WINNIPEG MAN ASSAULT WITH A WEAPON SEC 267(1)(A) CC 3 MOS & PROBATION 2 YRS 
1993-06-10 WINNIPEG MAN ASSAULT WITH A WEAPON SEC 267(1)(A) CC 4 MOS & PROBATION 2 YRS & FIREARMS PROH 5 YEARS 
                                                 
1 Also known as MXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
2 S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended. 
3 S.C. 1996, c. 19, as amended. 
2011 CanLII 73308 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI: TA9-23354 Client ID No. / N
o ID client: 2236-2082   
 2
 
1995-06-27 WINNIPEG MAN (1) ASSAULT CBH SEC 267 (1)(B) CC (2) ASSAULT SEC 266 CC (1-2) 8 MOS ON EACH CHG CONC & PROBATION, 3 YRS & PROHIBITED FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES FOR 15 YRS 
2009-06-30 KENORA ONT TRAFFICKING SEC 5(2) CDSA 9 MOS CONDITIONAL  
Issue and Decision [3] There was no challenge to the validity of the removal order which I find to be valid in law. Consequently the issue in this appeal is whether, in accordance with paragraph 67(1)( c) and subsection 68(1) of the IRPA, sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances  of the case. The appellant has the burden of meeting this statutory test. [4] After hearing the evidence of the appellant, and during the appellant’s argument, counsel for both parties submitted for my consideration a joint submission agreeing to the disposition of this appeal by way of a stay of the execution of the removal order herein for four (4) years on conditions. Those conditions are incorporated into  the formal order staying the removal order along with other conditions imposed by me in the exercise of my discretion in that regard. The said stay and conditions are hereinafter set out and form part of this decision. [5] I accept the joint recommendation of a stay as  adjusted by me on the basis of the reasonableness of the same in the context of the  factors set out in Ribic, Marida v. M.E.I
4 as they relate to the evidence. Analysis [6] The appellant is a male born in Montego Bay, Jamaica, on June 3, 1966. He is the youngest of 15 children. As his mother had too ma ny children to care for, at the age of four months the appellant was given over to a lady in  Montego Bay who was not related by blood and she raised him until he was about 15.                                                 
 
4 (I.A.B. T84-9623), D. Davey, XXXXXXXXX, Petryshyn, August 30, 1985. 
2011 CanLII 73308 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI: TA9-23354 Client ID No. / N
o ID client: 2236-2082   
 3
[7] The appellant went as far as either grade 3 or grade 5 in Jamaica.5 H e  w o r k e d  a s  a  baggage handler from the time he was 15 until he came to Canada at age 22. The appellant’s father lived in Winnipeg when he sponsored th e appellant to Canada. The appellant became a permanent resident on November 26, 1988. In less th an one month after arriving in Canada, the appellant began working for a company in Winnipeg removing asbestos from buildings. However, that job ended two months later in  December 1988 due to contamination problems. The appellant worked the next summer operating a jackhammer. Off-season, he said he worked odd jobs for a restaurant. [8] The appellant lived with his father for three y ears. The appellant’s criminal record started in early November 1990 when he was convicted of assaulting a woman. He said he was trying to keep her out of prostitution and her resistance caused him to slap her. He was sentenced to 14 days in jail and probation for 1 year. [9] Shortly thereafter, in or about April 1991, the appellant assaulted a person with a knife, thereby causing bodily harm. He pled guilty nearly  two years later, in 1993, and was sentenced to 3 months in jail and probation for 2 years. Th e appellant could not recall the details of the incident that led to this conviction. [10] The appellant’s daughter was born December 1, 1991. She has always lived with her mother. [11] The appellant was also convicted in 1993 of a ssault with a weapon for which he received 4 months in jail and probation for 2 years as well as a firearms prohibition for 5 years. The appellant said the weapon was a 2x4 that he used to  break the complainant’s arm in respect of an alleged $300 debt. The appellant said that he was defending himself while being attacked by three people. Nevertheless, he pled guilty.                                                 
 
5 The A44 Narrative report indicates the appellant had a grade 3 education and was illiterate when he came to Canada, but now has a grade 9 education and is fully literate. 
2011 CanLII 73308 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI: TA9-23354 Client ID No. / N
o ID client: 2236-2082   
 4
[12] In 1995, the appellant was convicted of three mo re crimes of violence. Twice in 1991 he assaulted the mother of his yet-to-be-born daughter with a knif e and with a screwdriver, and he assaulted her again in 1993, thereby causing her bodily harm. The appellant was sentenced to 8 months in jail to be served concurrently in resp ect of these three convictions. He was also put on probation for 3 years and a firearms prohibition was ordered for 15 years. [13] Since 1995, the appellant has not been convicted of  a crime of violence. He said that he is close to his daughter and he supports her in her efforts to be educated, but I note that she was not listed as a witness to provide evidence on his behalf. [14] The appellant informed the officer who in terviewed him that he was continuously employed since coming to Canada, but that is obvi ously not correct. The appellant’s evidence regarding his work experience was hazy, spotty, and generally unsupported by records. He said that within two weeks of his release from prison in 1996 he started working for a construction company where he learned to be a concrete floor finisher. Subsequently, he became an independent contractor working for that construction firm. He also said he started a waste- hauling business in 1996 that lasted for two years. It was conducted in partnership with another person. They hauled discarded construction materi al from sites. At one point, he manufactured wooden pegs from waste construction material a nd sold them to the construction company he once worked for. He did that for six or seven months. [15] In any event, in 2004 the appellant left Winnipe g and his daughter to build a concrete pad for fuel tankers in Sioux Lookout, a city of a pproximately 5,300 people located in Ontario about halfway between Winnipeg and Thunder Bay. He re turned to Winnipeg eight weeks later when the work was completed but an altercation involv ing a debt he allegedly owed and a sawed-off shotgun in his face seemed to convince the appell ant that he should return to Sioux Lookout to live. There, he met his common-law partner, who attended this hearing in support of the appellant. [16] The appellant has been successful in obtaining certification to operate various pieces of forestry and heavy construction equipment. He pr ovided certificates showing he has qualified as 
2011 CanLII 73308 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI: TA9-23354 Client ID No. / N
o ID client: 2236-2082   
 5
a bulldozer operator, a hydraulic excavator operator, and a mechanical harvesting equipment and grapple skidder operator. He has also succes sfully completed a number of training courses provided at a college in Dryden. [17] The appellant said that he was hired out of  the college he attended in Dryden as an operator of various heavy equipment and has had no difficulty keeping employed. His declared income for 2006 was approximately $5,000. That has risen steadily from about $19,000 in 2007 to $28,000 in 2008 to $37,000 in 2009 and to $36,000 in 2010. The year 2011, however, seems to have got off to a rocky start. The appellant said he has been sick but the nature of that illness was not divulged. He provided a record of em ployment that shows he worked 14 days for a forestry company in March and is now drawing on employment insurance. [18] The appellant began to live with his common-law spouse in the fall of 2004. She has a sister who lives on the Sachigo Lake First Nation reserve, a dry community about 425 kilometres north of Kenora. According to the Crown Synops is, on June 14, 2006, the appellant flew with his common-law spouse to the Sachigo Lake First Nation community and was found with a package of cocaine weighing 158 grams strapped to his leg. [19] The appellant pled guilty to trafficking in cocaine. The appellant told the immigration officer that he was accused of being in possession of 100 grams of cocaine but said that he had 25 grams which was for personal use as he was not  sure how much time he would be spending in the community. At this hearing, he said that in regard to the trafficking in cocaine charge, he was accused of having 84 grams of cocaine. [20] The appellant claimed that he was going on a th ree-week fishing trip on an island with a few of his common-law spouse’s brot hers, a brother-in-law and a few of their friends. He said he spent approximately $300 of his own money pur chasing the cocaine and the other fishers contributed as well. He claimed he did not kn ow the street value of the cocaine, though he bought it. He also said he was not aware that  there was a search procedure in place for passengers who disembarked at the Sachigo La ke Airport, though based upon prior experience he was aware that persons entering the co mmunity by car are subject to a search. 
2011 CanLII 73308 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI: TA9-23354 Client ID No. / N
o ID client: 2236-2082   
 6
[21] The appellant said that his involvement with cocaine first arose when he fell three stories in 1994 and the pain medication that was prescr ibed was not satisfactory as it caused the appellant to have what he described as “bad withdrawals,” so he went to cocaine rolled in marihuana before bedtime. [22] The appellant said that his common-law spous e parted company with him for two or three months after he was arrested. He turned to his common-law wife’s sister’s husband’s sister in Sioux Lookout who helped him to get back on his feet. She also provided him with a son who was born in April 2007. His son was apprehended by Children’s Aid at either three or nine months after birth along with the child’s other siblings. [23] The appellant said that he allowed his son to be  returned to his mother in order to give her a chance to prove she can manage, and so far she is  doing just fine. Since the mother of his son is collecting social assistance, he said, he cannot provide additional support for his son as that would disrupt the social assistance she is receivi ng. The appellant said that he pays the Family Responsibility Office $300 per month but has been as many as two payments in arrears in the past. [24] There is apparently a judicial proceedi ng on April 12, 2011 with respect to the arrangements for support for, custody of, and access to the appellant’s son, but it was unclear exactly what those proceedings are about. [25] The appellant’s common-law spouse has a five -year-old grandson who the appellant says is always at their home. He said he has take n the boy camping on ice. It is submitted on the appellant’s behalf that he is a role model for that boy as well as his own son. [26] The appellant says he is a volunteer firefight er and has completed about half the training required to trap fires. [27] The appellant also says that he is continui ng with counselling for drug abuse, though the Meno Ya Win Health Centre reports in a letter  dated January 28, 2011 that substance abuse was 
2011 CanLII 73308 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI: TA9-23354 Client ID No. / N
o ID client: 2236-2082   
 7
not an issue as the appellant had resolved his substance abuse at sometime prior to accessing their counselling service. The appellant said he was involved with illegal drugs between 1994 and 2006. In view of the appellant’s testimony, I cons ider that drug abuse probably is still a live issue for him. [28] The appellant repeatedly apologized for his bad behaviour which he said he is too old to repeat. He believes he has successfully made amends in the community and is trying to be a responsible person. He recognizes that he has been fortunate to have been able to learn skills that allow him to make a living. His ongoing obligation to  support his family appears to require more work. But, he has demonstrated that there is s upport for him in the community. There are letters from an individual who has known the appellant for six years and his pastor. As I said, the appellant’s common-law spouse attended the hearing on his behalf and it would appear that the appellant is in a stable relationship with her. [29] The appellant said that all of his siblings have left Jamaica for other countries and the woman who raised him is deceased, as is his mother. He has been back only once, in 2009. [30] The appellant acknowledged that 18 years a go he was ordered removed from Canada and put on a stay for three years, and he has been fo rced to comply with probationary orders in the past. Nevertheless, the respondent recommends th at the appellant’s removal order be stayed. [31] The joint submission by counsel stipulated by way of agreement of the parties that the stay would be for a period of four years; that th e appellant not take any illegal drugs or drugs not prescribed by a medical doctor; that he continue couples counselling at the Meno Ya Win Health Centre until his common-law spouse chooses not to do so; that he keep the peace and be of good behaviour; that he make reasonable efforts to search for and obtain employment; and that he report at least every six months during the stay and make the prescribed reports as indicated. The appellant also said that he would accept a prohibition from visiting the Sachigo Lake First Nation community if I considered it appropriate. These are the areas covered by the joint submission and recommended to me for consideration as a basi s for resolving the issues in this appeal. 
2011 CanLII 73308 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI: TA9-23354 Client ID No. / N
o ID client: 2236-2082   
 8
Decision [32] In view of the joint submission made by counsel for both parties and in the circumstances, I have concluded that the deportati on order is valid in law. I have also found that taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected by this decision, there are marginally sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations to warrant special relief in light of all of the circumstances of this case. In order to maintain the security of Canadian society, I have added as a condition that during the term of this stay the appellant not attend any First Nation reserve. [33] Accordingly, the appellant’s order of remova l is stayed until on or about April 17, 2015, in accordance with the attached conditions. 
2011 CanLII 73308 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI: TA9-23354 Client ID No. / N
o ID client: 2236-2082   
 9
CONDITIONS OF STAY OF REMOVAL ORDER 
 The removal order in this appeal is stayed.  This stay is made on the following conditions – the appellant must:  [1] 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, 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.  [2] 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.  [3] Apply for an extension of the validity period of any passport or travel document before it expires, and provide a copy of the extend ed passport or document to the Agency.  [4] Not commit any criminal offences.  [5] If charged with a criminal offence, immediately report that fact in writing to the Agency.  [6] If convicted of a criminal offence, immediately report that fact in writing to the Agency and the Immigration Appeal Division.  [7] Provide all information, notices and docume nts (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, Mississauga, Ontario, L4V 1E8.  It is the responsibility of the appellant that the documents are received by the Agency within any time period required by a condition of the stay.  [8] Provide all information, notices and docume nts (the “documents”) required by the conditions of the stay by hand; by regular or registered mail; by courier or priority post; or by fax to the Immigration Appeal Division at 416-954-1165.  Include your IAD 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.  [9] Report to the Agency in person (with a written report) at the Canada Border Services Agency, The Greater Toronto Enforcement Centre, 6900 Airport Road, Entrance 2B, Mississauga, Ontario between the hours of 07:30 a.m. to 16:00 p.m.
, and every six (6)  month(s) on the following dates:  
2011 CanLII 73308 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI: TA9-23354 Client ID No. / N
o ID client: 2236-2082   
 10
September 16, 2011 March 16, 2012 September 14, 2012 March 15, 2013 September 20, 2013 March 21, 2014 September 19, 2014 March 20, 2015  The appellant shall report in person
 (with a written report).  The reports are to contain details of the appellant’s:  - employment or efforts to obtain employment if unemployed; - current living arrangements; - marital status including common-law relationships; - attendance at any educational institution and any change in that attendance; - attendance at meetings of Alcoholics An onymous, or any other drug or alcohol rehabilitation program; - participation in psychotherapy or counselling for couples; - meetings with parole officer, including details of any violations of the conditions of parole; and - other relevant changes of personal circumstances.  [10] Make reasonable efforts to seek and maintain full-time employment and IMMEDIATELY report any change in employment to the Agency.  [11] Attend a drug or alcohol rehabilitation program at Meno Ya Win Health Centre for substance abuse in accordance with the terms and conditions of such program. (Note:  If you withdraw your consent to the foregoing condit ion, you must bring an application to the Appeal Division forthwith to have this condition removed.)  [12] 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.  [13] Not own or possess offensive weapons or imitations of offensive weapons.  [14] Respect all parole conditions and any court orders.  [15] Refrain from the illegal use or sale of drugs.  [16] Keep the peace and be of good behaviour.  [17] Not attend any First Nation reserve, includ ing Sachigo Lake First Nation Community, during the term of this stay. 
2011 CanLII 73308 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI: TA9-23354 Client ID No. / N
o ID client: 2236-2082   
 11
  
FINAL RECONSIDERATION 
 Take notice that the Immigration Appeal Division  will reconsider the case on or about the 17
th day of April 2015
 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 IAD 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. 
 
IMPORTANT WARNING 
 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 anot her 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.    “XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX” XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
  April 15, 2011 Date 
   Judicial Review – Under section 72 of the Immigration an d Refugee Protection Act, you may make an application to 
the Federal Court for judicial review of this decision, with  leave of that Court.  You may wish to get advice from 
counsel as soon as possible, since there are time limits for this application. 
 
 
2011 CanLII 73308 (CA IRB)

