Baker v. Canada: Officer Lorenz's "decision" | shannonsalter | May 06, 2015


This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at Thank you.

Baker v. Canada: Officer Lorenz's "decision"

Notes from Officer Lorenz, which formed his “decision” and “reasons” regarding Ms. Baker.

PC is unemployed - on Welfare.  No income shown - no assets.  Has four Cdn.-born children- four other children in Jamaica- HAS A TOTAL OF EIGHT CHILDREN

Says only two children are in her “direct custody”. (No info on who has ghe [sic] other two).

There is nothing for her in Jamaica - hasn’t been there in a long time - no longer close to her children there - no jobs there - she has no skills other than as a domestic - children would suffer - can’t take them with her and can’t leave them with anyone here.  Says has suffered from a mental disorder since ’81 - is now an outpatient and is improving.  If sent back will have a relapse.

Letter from Children’s Aid - they say PC has been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. - children would suffer if returned -

Letter of Aug. ’93 from psychiatrist from Ont. Govm’t.

Says PC had post-partum psychosis and had a brief episode of psychosis in Jam. when was 25 yrs. old.  Is now an out-patient and is doing relatively well - deportation would be an extremely stressful experience.

Lawyer says PS [sic] is sole caregiver and single parent of two Cdn born children.  Pc’s mental condition would suffer a setback if she is deported etc.

This case is a catastrophy [sic].  It is also an indictment of our “system” that the client came as a visitor in Aug. ’81, was not ordered deported until Dec. ’92 and in APRIL ’94 IS STILL HERE!

The PC is a paranoid schizophrenic and on welfare.  She has no qualifications other than as a domestic.  She has FOUR CHILDREN IN JAMAICA AND ANOTHER FOUR BORN HERE.  She will, of course, be a tremendous strain on our social welfare systems for (probably) the rest of her life.  There are no H&C factors other than her FOUR CANADIAN-BORN CHILDREN.  Do we let her stay because of that?  I am of the opinion that Canada can no longer afford this type of generosity.  However, because of the circumstances involved, there is a potential for adverse publicity.  I recommend refusal but you may wish to clear this with someone at Region.

There is also a potential for violence - see charge of “assault with a weapon”

[Capitalization in original.]



Text Information

May 06, 2015

Author Stats


Adjunct Professor

University of British Columbia Faculty of Law

Leitura Garamond Futura Verdana Proxima Nova Dagny Web
small medium large extra-large