Staying Removal at Federal Court

The Federal Court of Canada can provide interlocutory stays, including staying removal.

There is a three-stage test to be applied when considering an application for an interlocutory injunction.

A court must determine that there is a serious issue or question to be tried, that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were to be refused, and that the balance of convenience (assessed by examining which of the parties will suffer the greater harm from granting or refusing the injunction) rests with the applicant.

As well, it is important to note that a stay of removal is an equitable remedy that is typically only available to an individual who has not committed an inequity.

Irreparable Harm

The Supreme Court of Canada describes ‘irreparable harm’ as follow:

“Irreparable” refers to the nature of the harm suffered rather than its magnitude.  It is harm which either cannot be quantified in monetary terms or which cannot be cured, usually because one party cannot collect damages from the other.

In other words, harm which can be avoided, or if unavoidable can be cured, is not irreparable harm.

Irreparable harm is often the deciding factor in an interlocutory motion.  In British Columbia Civil Liberties Association v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), for example, the Federal Court found that there was no irreparable harm for Canadian citizens facing loss of their citizenship. The reason for this was because there was (and as of writing is) currently a consolidated Federal Court proceeding through which anyone who files an Application for Leave to Commence Judicial Review will receive an automatic stay.  As Justice Zinn noted:

Here, as the Moving Parties admit, the harm to anyone in receipt of a Notice of Intent to Revoke Citizenship is avoidable. They need merely file an application to this Court for leave and judicial review of that revocation notice and they are granted an automatic stay. To date, many have done so.

If now or in the future there are persons in receipt of a Notice of Intent to Revoke Citizenship who through ignorance or lack of resources fail to challenge that decision in this Court, does that change the harm from an avoidable one to an unavoidable one? I think not.

Asking the Embassy to Re-Consider an Application

Once a decision has been rendered in relation to an application for a humanitarian and compassionate exemption, is the ability of the decision-maker to reopen or reconsider the application on the basis of further evidence provided by an applicant limited by the doctrine of functus officio?
Continue reading →

US War Deserters – Immigrating to Canada

In a decision that has received much media attention, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA“) on July 6, 2010, released its decision in Hinzman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FCA 177 (“Hinzman“)

Hinzman involved an American soldier who for moral and religious beliefs was against “all participation in war”.  In 2004, upon learning that his unit would be deployed to Iraq, Mr. Hinzman fled the United States for Canada. He has been AWOL from the US army since his arrival in Canada.  He originally claimed refugee status, a claim which was unsuccessful.

He then filed a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (“PRRA“), and an application for permanent residence based on Humanitarian & Compassionate (“H&C“) grounds.

A Citizenship and Immigration Canada officer (the “Officer“) rejected the PRRA.  She found that:

[t]he possibility of prosecution under a law of general application is not, in and of itself, sufficient evidence that an applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution. The PRRA application is not an avenue to circumvent lawful and legitimate prosecutions commenced by a democratic country.

The appellant did not seek leave to apply for judicial review of the PRRA decision.

The Officer also rejected the H&C application.  The appellant sought leave to appeal of this decision.  The Federal Court upheld the Appellant’s decision. However, it certified the following question:

Can punishment under a law of general application for desertion, when the desertion was motivated by a sincere an deeply held moral, political and/or religious objection to a particular war, amount to unusual, undeserved or disproportionate hardship in the context of an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds?

PRRA and H&C Applications Require Different Tests

The FCA answered the question in the affirmative. It is important to note that it did not rule that H&C would always be appropriate for war deserters, nor did it state that Mr. Hinzman’s H&C application should be successful. Rather, the FCA found that punishment for desertion, where the desertion was motivated by a deeply held moral, political and/or religious objection, could amount to unusual, undeserved, or disproportionate hardship. The Court thus remitted the matter to a different Officer with the requirement that the new officer reevaluate the application using this criteria.

This judgment is the latest in a series of decisions reminding Immigration Officers that PRRA and H&C applications require different tests.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act requires that PRRA officers give consideration to any new, credible, relevant, and material evidence of facts that might have affected the outcome of an appellant’s refugee claim hearing had this evidence been presented, and to assess the risk to the individual if removed.

H&C applications, meanwhile, require officers to regard public policy considerations and humanitarian grounds, including family-related interests.

The Officer did not appear to consider this, instead noting with regards to the H&C application that:

It is important to note that the possibility of prosecution for a law of general application is not, in and of itself, suffiicent evidence that an applicant will face unusual and undeserved, or disporporitionate hardship. The H&C application is not an avenue to circumvent lawful and legitimate prosecutions commenced by a democratic country.

As the FCA noted, this standard of analysis is generally used for PRRA applications. It is not the test for H&C applications.

Once again, the FCA stressed that it was not altering the discretion of officers, nor that it was giving Mr. Hinzman a right to a particular outcome. Rather, it found that the  Officer had to apply the appropriate test.

Operational Bulletin 202

As a result of the Hinzman decision, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC“) released Operational Bulletin 202, which states:

This operational bulletin provides immigration officers in Canada with instructions on processing cases involving military deserters.


Some individuals who may have deserted the military or who may have committed an offence equivalent to desertion of the military in their country of origin have sought refuge in Canada. Desertion is an offence in Canada under the National Defence Act (NDA). The maximum punishment for desertion under section 88 of the NDA is life imprisonment, if the person committed the offence on active service or under orders for active service. Consequently, persons who have deserted the military in their country of origin may be inadmissible to Canada under section 36(1)(b) or 36(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The current inventory of military deserter cases is comprised primarily of members of the United States armed forces who have claimed refugee protection in Canada. Desertion from the armed forces is described as an offence pursuant to section 85 of the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Many of the persons in our current case inventory have had their refugee claims heard and have subsequently applied for permanent residence in Canada based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations. Some have also applied for permanent residence in Canada as members of the spouse or common-law partner in Canada class. Others have filed Pre-removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) applications when faced with removal from Canada. These applications are at various stages of processing either in the regions or at CPC-Vegreville.

All cases which have come to the attention of the Case Management Branch (CMB) have been identified in FOSS via a non-computer based entry.

General guidelines
Processing applications for permanent residence in Canada

Given the complexity of equating either a conviction for desertion or the commission of an act constituting an offence of desertion under a foreign law with an offence under an Act of Parliament (the National Defence Act), officers are instructed to contact their Regional Program Advisor (RPA) for guidance when processing applications for permanent residence in Canada made by military deserters. Officers are also instructed to copy the Case Review Division of the CMB on their initial communication with their RPA.

Processing claims for refugee protection in Canada

Notification of all new claims for refugee protection by military deserters and any updates to these refugee claims including PRRA applications must be provided to CMB using the existing guidelines on processing high profile, contentious and sensitive cases (OP 1, section 15).


In accordance with current instructions with respect to cases where a personal interview or an in-depth investigation may be required, CPC-Vegreville is asked to transfer applications filed by military deserters to the appropriate inland CIC for processing.

Through Access to Information Act requests we have also obtained what appear to be two internal directives to CIC officers that will be helpful to anyone with clients whose refugee claims are at least partially based on desertion.  They include research sources, factors that officers should consider, and possible interview questions.

Appealing IRPA Decisions to the Federal Court of Appeal

Generally, when the Federal Court makes a decision on an immigration matter, the decision is final. As most lawyers tell their clients at the outset, there is no right to appeal a Federal Court decision unless the Federal Court certifies an issue raised in the litigation as being a question of general importance. However, it is important that representatives be familiar with some exceptions to this rule.
Continue reading →

Espionage and Immigrating to Canada

On July 19, 2010, the Federal Court in Peer v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 752 certified the following question:

Is a person inadmissible to Canada for “engaging in an act of espionage… against a democratic government, institution or process” within the meaning of subsection section 34(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, if the person’s activities consist of intelligence gathering activities that are legal in the country where they take place, do not violate international law and where there is no evidence of hostile intent against the persons who are being observed?

On March 9, 2011, the Federal Court of Appeal answered.  The answer is yes.

Functus Officio and Appealing to the Federal Court of Appeal

On June 10, 2010, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA“) issued its decision in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Arif, 2010 FCA 157.  The majority and concurring opinions discussed two procedural rules that will interest immigration practitioners  The first issue was when a Federal Court determination regarding a Citizenship Judge’s decision can be appealed. The second was the relationship between section 399(2) of the Federal Court Rules and the principle of functus officio.

When can a Federal Court Order Regarding a Citizenship Judge’s Opinion be Appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal?

Section 14 of the Citizenship Act regulates appeals from Citizenship judges. Subsections 5 and 6 provide that:


(5) The Minister or the applicant may appeal to the Court from the decision of the citizenship judge under subsection (2) by filing a notice of appeal in the Registry of the Court within sixty days after the day on which

(a) the citizenship judge approved the application under subsection (2); or

(b) notice was mailed or otherwise given under subsection (3) with respect to the application.

Decision final

(6) A decision of the Court pursuant to an appeal made under subsection (5) is, subject to section 20, final and, notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, no appeal lies therefrom.

Subsection six clearly states that the FCA is precluded from hearing appeals from Federal Court decisions pursuant to an appeal of a citizenship judge’s determination. But, does the FCA have jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions of the Federal Court reconsidering, or refusing to reconsider, its decisions?

In answering this question, the Court applied the test that it articulated in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Saji, 2010 FCA 100.  There, the Court ruled that:

…, an appeal from the Federal Court to this Court is only precluded by subsection (6) as a decision made “pursuant to an appeal under subsection (5)” if the decision in question relates to the ultimate question, namely, whether the [C]itizenship [J]udge erred in approving or not approving a citizenship application, or in determining a question related to it.

Applying this test, the Federal Court of Appeal found that a decision not to reconsider the decision of a Citizenship Judge is a question that determines the ultimate question, and hence is not appealable.  Accordingly, the FCA found that it was without jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Continue reading “Functus Officio and Appealing to the Federal Court of Appeal”

Illegal Immigrants Do Not Have a Charter Right to Health Care

In a case that has generated media publicity, the Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that illegal immigrants do not have a Charter right to health care.  The facts in Toussaint v. Canada, 2011 FCA 213, were simple.  In 1999, the appellant entered Canada as a visitor.  She never left, and never attempted to normalize her status.  In 2006, her health began to deteriorate.  In 2009, she applied to Citizenship and Immigration Canada for medical coverage under the Interim Federal Health Program (the “IFHP”).  Her request was denied, as the IFHP is limited to refugee claimants, resettled refugees, persons detained under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and Victims of Trafficking in Persons.

The Federal Court of Appeal found that the appellant met none of these conditions, and that the IFHP could not have been intended to pay for the medical expenses of those who arrive as visitors but remain illegally in Canada.

A significant portion of the judgment related to Charter arguments regarding whether denying illegal immigrants access to the IFHP breached the right to life and security of the person (s. 7 of the Charter) or the right to equality (s. 15 of the Charter).

The Right to Life and Security of the Person Challenge

Section 7 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that:

Life, liberty and security of person

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

The Federal Court of Appeal did not disagree with the appellant’s assertion that the denial of health care coverage expose her to significant risk to life and health, or that the risk was significant enough to trigger a violation of her rights to life and security of the person.  It did, however, determine that the denial of health care coverage was not the operative cause of the injury to her rights to life and security.  Rather, it found that the Appellant staying in Canada illegally was the main reason that her life and security of the person was affected.

Furthermore, the Federal Court of Appeal reiterated what has become the accepted jurisprudence that the Charter does not confer a freestanding constitutional right to health care, and that the courts can (and frequently do) deny claims under the Charter to obtain state funding or financial assistance for necessary treatments.

The Equality of Person Challenge

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Although “immigration status” is not mentioned as a prohibited ground for discrimination in s. 15, the courts do have the ability to read in analogous grounds.  In Egan v. Canada, for example, the Supreme Court of Canada held that sexual orientation is an analogous ground.

Unfortunately for the appellants, the Federal Court of Appeal did not accept that immigration status qualifies as an analogous ground under s. 15 of the Charter, primarily because immigration is not a characteristic that an individual cannot change.  The court noted that it is not immutable or changeable only at unacceptable cost to personal identity.  Indeed, the court noted that immigration status is a characteristic that the government has a legitimate interest in expecting a person to change.

There were other reason for dismissing the s. 15 Charter argument, including that the policy did not stigmatize or expose illegal immigrants to prejudice, however, the above is probably the most significant in terms of developing obiter dicta.