Judge stops refugee claimant’s deportation from Canada, berates CBSA for misleading evidence

Abideen Olalekan Oladipupo has struggled with depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

 

In April, the failed refugee claimant spiralled into a “full-blown” breakdown when a federal judge dashed his last hope to be spared from deportation to Nigeria.

 

Instead of showing up for his removal, the 63-year-old went into hiding. He was apprehended a month later and held in the Toronto immigration holding centre near Rexdale.

 

While in detention, Oladipupo twice attempted suicide and twice was taken to hospital. Yet, the Canada Border Services Agency obtained letters from two physicians that concluded he was fit to fly for his scheduled removal on June 17. It said officials had confirmed with a local hospital in Lagos that the patient would be admitted to the facility upon arrival.

 

That would have been the end of the story if not for Oladipupo’s diligent lawyer who would not just take the agency’s words for his deportation arrangement, according to a Federal Court judge who recently halted Oladipupo’s removal after reviewing questionable evidence submitted by the government.

“This is not merely troubling litigation tactics from the Respondent — a Minister of the Canadian government — whereby they attempt to smuggle equivocal evidence into a record to support their position,” wrote Justice Shirzad S. Ahmed in a recent decision to stay the deportation.

 

“This conduct borders on — and very closely borders on — misleading the Court.”

 

The judge’s comments against the minister of public safety and emergency preparedness, who oversees the border agency, were not something commonly seen.

 

“Admittedly, it’s probably the strongest language in terms of CBSA conduct that I’ve seen in the context of removal,” said Warda Shazadi Meighen, an executive member of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, which is not involved in the case.

 

“It underscores how important oversight is for an organization that has this much power.”

 

The border agency said it is aware of the court decision and is reviewing it but declined to comment on the specific case.

 

“The CBSA has a legal obligation to remove inadmissible individuals from Canada as soon as possible,” said the agency’s spokesperson Luke Reimer. “The timely removal of inadmissible foreign nationals plays a critical role in supporting the integrity of Canada’s immigration system.”

 

Oladipupo came to Canada in 2016 for asylum, claiming he faced persecution in Nigeria due to his political beliefs. However, he was deemed inadmissible due to convictions he had accrued while living in the U.S. between 1983 and 1999, including misdemeanours and felony offences.

 

His claim was denied in 2018 and subsequent appeals also failed. His permanent residence applications on humanitarian grounds were refused. He vanished just before his April 5 removal, but was arrested a month later.

 

His deportation was rescheduled but his lawyer at the Refugee Law Office, Anthony Navaneelan, sounded the alarm over his client’s mental health state and care arrangement by the border agency, and asked the Federal Court to stay his June 17 removal.

 

According to Oladipupo’s affidavit to court, his parents and a sister are deceased and his two brothers are in Canada and the U.S. Although he has an ex-wife and two children, he said he has lost touch with them after they moved to Togo.

 

“If I go back to Nigeria, I am going back to die and I have no place to stay, no one to support me, and no family to be with,” he said. “It was these kinds of thoughts that left me feeling hopeless and in despair.”

 

In his submissions, Navaneelan referenced the border agency’s reports that detailed Oladipupo’s self-harming behaviour and suicide threats.

 

While in detention awaiting deportation, the agency also reported Oladipupo attempted to kill himself.

 

He was hospitalized and released back to the immigration holding centre after a few days, but readmitted to hospital after he made another attempt.

 

At the court hearing into Oladipupo’s request to defer his June 17 deportation, the government said there was no evidence that the man was struggling with mental health issues; nor did he mention during an interview that his mental or physical health being affected by the removal or being left at the airport in Nigeria.

 

In a sworn affidavit, the border enforcement officer responsible for Oladipupo’s removal said the agency “has been diligently making arrangements for the Applicant’s travel and arrival in Nigeria” and had spoken with a liaison officer in Lagos, who had “reached out” to the Gracehill Behavioural Health Services in Nigeria.

 

This hospital “confirmed they would admit the Applicant to their facility upon arrival if required and would provide ambulance services to transport him from the airport to the hospital,” the affidavit said.

 

But the affidavit was disputed by Oladipupo’s lawyer, who provided email correspondence with the hospital revealing that “our bed space is fully occupied” and the administration had “only received a generic enquiry email” about the patient and “made no confirmations” about his care arrangements.

 

The court also heard neither of the border agency’s physicians who cleared Oladipupo to be fit to fly specialized in psychology or mental health. In fact, it said, one of them was a specialist in cosmetics.

 

The doctors’ letters said the same thing, verbatim — and essentially nothing more: “The patient appears to be free of any serious communicable illness/mental health issues,” with no analysis or description of Oladipupo’s conditions, the court pointed out.

 

Justice Ahmed said he was concerned over the border agency’s handling of the matter and explanation of the discrepancies in evidence as “miscommunication.”

 

“Let me be clear: I caution the Respondent strongly in engaging in such conduct,” he wrote. “The integrity of this Court’s proceedings is in hand; the Respondent’s duties of candour are in question; and an individual’s life is at stake.”

 

 

The judge was also troubled by the government’s submission that the suicidal risk must be “imminent” to justify the stay of Oladipupo’s removal.

 

“An ‘imminent’ risk of someone taking their own life does not, contrary to the Respondent’s logic, require that someone succeed in it,” cautioned Justice Ahmed, adding that the doctors’ fit-to-fly evaluation letters “are not worth the paper that they are written on.”

 

Reimer, the CBSA spokesperson, said when an individual’s scheduled removal may be affected for medical reasons, a contracted doctor will determine if medical assistance is required during travel. “This assessment is not meant to address underlying conditions but to ensure that the person can be removed to their country of origin safely,” he explained.

 

The next step would be for a court to decide if the CBSA acted reasonably.

 

In July, counsel for the government made the unusual move to ask the judge to modify his pointed remarks in the ruling, arguing that they were damaging to the professional reputation of the lawyer representing the minister in the case. This month, the court dismissed the request.

 

“The Respondent may not like the language used in the decision or may feel that the decision reads a certain way,” Justice Ahmed said in his Aug. 8 ruling. “These considerations are irrelevant for a request for the Court to reconsider, vary, or set aside a final decision. One would expect more before challenging this Court’s integrity.”

 

 

 

This article was first reported by The Star