…In this case, as in Agraira, the certified question asks a question that requires an interpretation of a provision of the Act. This Court has consistently taken the view that where a certified question asks a question of statutory interpretation, this Court must provide the definitive interpretation without deferring to the administrative decision-maker. Then, this Court must assess whether there…
Read more ›…nature of the question of law is the interpretation of the phrase “people smuggling”. This question of statutory interpretation of the Board’s home statute raises neither a constitutional question, nor a question of law of general importance to the legal system as a whole. Neither does it involve a question regarding jurisdictional lines between competing specialized tribunals nor a true…
Read more ›…Court of Canada is not limited to the question that the judge certified. In Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), the Supreme Court stated that (citations removed): Once an appeal has been brought to this Court by way of certified question, this Court must deal with the certified question and all other issues that might affect the validity of the…
Read more ›…of granting permanent residence he/she had no knowledge of the material fact that constituted such misrepresentation? The Federal Court of Appeal’s answer to this certified question will likely clarify many aspects of s. 40 misrepresentation. The facts giving rise to the question can briefly be summarized as follows: Mr. Osisanwo submitted a birth certificate stating that he was the child…
Read more ›Does the Immigration and Refugee Board (“IRB”) violate the provisions of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”) if it declines to postpone a hearing based on risk to life where there is a pending humanitarian and compassionate application also based on risk to life? The above question was certified by the Federal Court in…
Read more ›The Federal Court in Carran v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) has certified the following question of general importance: During a stay of removal order, does subsection 68(4) of the IRPA only apply to convictions for subsection 36(1) offences committed after the beginning of the stay? The case involved a permanent resident who had several criminal convictions. On May…
Read more ›On March 17, 2015, Justice Montigny in Ismail v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 338 (“Ismail“), certified the following question: For the purposes of determining its jurisdiction to hear an appeal pursuant to subsection 63(2) of the IRPA, shall the validity of the permanent resident visa be assessed by the IAD at the time of arrival in Canada or…
Read more ›…As the Federal Court of Appeal noted: This Court has consistently taken the view that where a certified question asks a question of statutory interpretation, this Court must provide the definitive interpretation without deferring to the administrative decision-maker. Then, this Court must assess whether there are grounds to set aside the outcome reached by the administrative decision-maker on the facts…
Read more ›…apply should not serve as an invitation to try your luck in Canada. There would be good grounds for a certified question if the issue was not obiter. As this discussion is obiter, as I have found that the finding that the Applicant had Indian citizenship was reasonable, I will not certify a question. Finally, in Tretsetsang v. Canada, Justice…
Read more ›The Federal Court (the “Court“) in Habtenkiel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), has certified a question that if answered in the affirmative would seem to pretty much shut the door on humanitarian & compassionate (“H&C“) appeals of s. 117(9)(d) refusals. The certified question is: In light of sections 72(2)(a), 63(1) and 65 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C….
Read more ›Social Media
