I would take my one day vacation with pay

I would like to point out to Mr. Smith that Coral Beach Board of Directors, Lead by his client, declared some owners at Coral Beach undesirables, and forced them to leave the Coral beach community and the Bahamas. In my opinion, this is a classic example of Chickens coming home to roost.

In the article you said , " Mr Rufa would seem to have been a respected member of his community. " well ,not at all , him and his BOD are in Court for oppression of the minority . he is an oppressor . Ask people who had to sell and leave the Bahamas because the pressure they go from him !

signed a british subject , really ??? I will say a canadian subject !! Sandra, Bruno is it you ?

Bruno Rufa appeared in the Supreme Court on Sept 7, 2015 for Judicial review proceedings.

Rufa’s Affidavit was read by his attorney and that allowed the court to hear his account of his arrest on January 30 through deportation. This account included - six officers arresting Rufa at his residence inside the Coral Beach Condominiums, and “paraded him the long and most embarrassing route out of the building.”

Rufa’s Affidavit also detailed his forced departure from the country, and how despite being granted an injunction while in mid-air, he was unable to reenter the country when he landed in Miami.

The affidavit said everything else but it conveniently left out the part that Rufa's 90 days stay had expired.
The ruling in the matter was scheduled for October 5, 2015

On February 19 2015 the Tribune reported that,“attorney Fred Smith, QC, has obtained a Supreme Court injunction restraining the deportation of Canadian resident Bruno Rufa, who was taken into custody and deported by immigration officials following an adjourned hearing in Freeport”.
How did Fred Smith get an injunction if there was no deportation order served on his client? Did he not know that Mr. Rufa’s 90 days stay had expired? Was Mr. Smith forthcoming with Justice Philip Dunkley? What is Mr. Smith seeking to achieve from Judicial Review proceedings, is it the right to Due Process for his client?
Did Mr. Smith expect the Immigration Department to extend his client’s stay and provide Mr. Rufa with a home owner's residency permit; even though his client was charged in the Magistrate court and his 90 days stay had expired?
If Mr. Smith was in charge of Immigration, what would he have done?

This daily news reported on September 2, that the attorneys for Canadian resident Bruno Rufa have said that his deportation from The Bahamas “dramatically and prejudicially affected” their client’s long-term residency in Freeport.

What evidence the attorneys have to support the claim that Bruno Rufa was deported from the Bahamas? Back in 2007 the owners at Coral Beach thought he was deported but it was later revealed by the Director of Immigration that he had a supervised departure.

The Assistant Director of Immigration reported in the daily news on February 5, 2015, that Bruno Rufa entered the country as a visitor on a 90-day stay on November 4. His time would have expired to stay in the Bahamas when he was charged in the Magistrate court on February 2 with engaging in gainful occupation contrary to Section 29 (1) and (2) of the Immigration Act. Off course Immigration took him into custody and escorted him out of the country. In my opinion Officials informing the court that the Director of Immigration had decided that Mr Rufa was an undesirable and was to be deported as soon as possible, was a courtesy to the court and to put Mr. Rufa on notice to get his affairs in order.

I suspect this was nothing more than another supervised departure because Bruno Rufa’s time had expired to remain in the Bahamas and Immigration was not prepared to extend his time under the circumstances. I believe in due course he will be served his deportation papers as an undesirable under Section 40 of the Immigration Act, And then he will have Due process subject to Section 40 (2) of the Immigration Act.