About Us
Explain to you how all this mistaken denouncing pleasure and praising pain was born and we will give you a complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings.
Mistaken denouncing pleasure and praising pain was born and we will give you complete account of the system expound.
About UsContact Info
- Unit 615 - 2250 Bovaird Drive East, Brampton, Ontario
- (778) 683-8110
- harsher@titaniumlaw.ca
- legalassistant@titaniumlaw.ca
- info@titaniumlaw.ca
- Fax: (866) 483-7241
Office Hours:Monday - Friday: 8:30am to 6:30pm
Call Now: (778) 683-8110
Success Stories
Our Legal Victories
This Year's Success Stories
The following are the latest cases in which we achieved swift and favorable outcomes for our clients.
Background
In this case, our client, a citizen of Zimbabwe, faced imminent removal from Canada following a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). The client feared return due to risks arising from her political affiliation in Zimbabwe, as well as her personal circumstances. We brought an urgent motion before the Federal Court of Canada seeking a stay of removal while pursuing an application for leave and judicial review. We argued that the PRRA decision was unreasonable, including concerns with how the officer assessed the evidence and the risks faced by the applicant upon return. We further submitted that removal prior to the Court’s determination would expose the client to serious and irreversible harm.
Decision
The Federal Court of Canada granted the stay of removal, finding that the applicant met all three elements of the applicable test. The Court was satisfied that the application raised a serious issue regarding the reasonableness of the PRRA decision, that the applicant would face irreparable harm if removed to Zimbabwe before her judicial review is determined, and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo. Accordingly, the Court ordered a temporary stay of removal, allowing the applicant to remain in Canada pending the outcome of her legal challenge.
Background
In this case, our client and her children, were citizens of Mexico. We asked the Federal Court to stay their deportation because of urgent personal circumstances, including the deteriorating health of one of her children. We argued that the CBSA officer's refusal to defer their removal was unreasonable and would cause serious harm. The court agreed that the family met the strict legal test for such relief and granted a temporary stay of removal.
Decision
The Federal Court granted the applicants' motion for a stay of their removal to Colombia, which had been scheduled for June 30, 2025. The court held that the applicants met all three parts of the legal test for a stay of removal. It found that their challenge to the refusal of a deferral raised a strong and serious issue, especially given concerns about how the CBSA officer assessed the circumstances. On irreparable harm, the court accepted that removal at this time would place the applicants, particularly the child, at real risk of harm that could not be remedied later. Finally, when weighing the applicants' situation against the government's interest in carrying out removals, the balance of convenience was found to favour the applicants. As a result, the court granted the motion and ordered a temporary stay of their removal from Canada.
Background
In this case, our clients were citizens of Colombia, and feared persecution from the Frente 30, which was a military unit of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). We sought a stay of their removal to Colombia, while we challenged a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) decision.
Decision
The Federal Court granted the applicants' motion for a stay of their removal to Colombia, which had been scheduled for May 07, 2025. The decision means they will not be removed while their application for leave and judicial review of a negative pre-removal risk assessment is pending. Applying the required three-part test, the court found that (1) the application raises a serious issue, (2) the applicants would suffer irreparable harm if removed to Colombia, and (3) the balance of convenience favors granting the stay. Since all three elements were met, the court concluded the stay was warranted.
Background
In this case, our client was a citizen of Mexico. We sought a stay of his removal to Mexico, while we challenged a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) decision. The PRRA decision had denied his claim that he would face risk of harm in Mexico due to threats from a criminal cartel against his family.
Decision
The Federal Court concluded that our client's claim raised a serious issue, particularly regarding the potential risk to his safety. The court also found that we demonstrated that our client would face irreparable harm, as the threats from the cartel appeared to be escalating and not sufficiently addressed in the PRRA decision. Lastly, the court determined that the balance of convenience favored a stay, as a brief delay in removal was less detrimental than the potential harm the applicant would face. The court granted the stay of removal pending the determination of the judicial review.
Background
In this case, our client was a 72-year-old man who was born in England but entered Canada in 1952 as a British subject. We sought a stay of his removal from Canada while challenging the refusal to defer his deportation. Our client, born in the UK and residing in Canada since childhood, had been declared inadmissible to Canada due to his alleged involvement in a Ponzi scheme in the USA and sought judicial review of decisions related to his citizenship application and removal.
Decision
We argued that deporting our client to the UK would cause irreparable harm due to his health conditions, financial instability, and lack of social support there. The Federal Court granted us a stay of removal, citing the potential harm to our client and the balance of convenience favoring his case.
Background
In this case, our client was a citizen of El Salvador, and a former member of the MS-13 Gang. We sought a stay of his removal to El Salvador, while we challenged a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) decision.
Decision
The Federal Court concluded that the applicant raised a serious issue, as the PRRA decision might not have fully considered the applicant's concerns regarding the risk of persecution due to his gang-related tattoos. It found clear evidence of irreparable harm, as the applicant risked being killed by the MS-13 gang or facing harsh treatment by Salvadorian authorities because of his tattoos. The court also found that the balance of convenience favored the applicant, and as a result, granted the motion for a stay of removal until the judicial review of the PRRA decision was determined.
Background
In this case, our client returned to Canada with her young daughter to flee abuse by her common-law partner in the United States. The opposing party initiated a petition under the Hague Convention seeking the child's return. We mounted a strong defense on behalf of our client, resulting in an exception ruling from the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The Court determined that, due to the history of abuse, the child would not be returned to her father in the USA.
Decision
The Supreme Court of British Columbia granted an exception to the Hague Convention, determining that the child would not be returned to her father in the USA due to the history of abuse. The court found that returning the child would expose her to grave risk of physical or psychological harm or otherwise place her in an intolerable situation.