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

H2O

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 https://opencasebook.org. 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.]

 

Close

Text Information

May 06, 2015

Author Stats

shannonsalter

Adjunct Professor

University of British Columbia Faculty of Law

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