Section 25 of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides that applicants can seek humanitarian & compassionate relief from the harsh application of other portions of Canadian immigration legislation.
When the IRPA was created s. 25 was short two paragraphs, and read:
25. (1) The Minister shall, upon request of a foreign national who is inadmissible or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, and may, on the Minister’s own initiative, examine the circumstances concerning the foreign national and may grant the foreign national permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligation of this Act if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to them, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected, or by public policy considerations.
(2) The Minister may not grant permanent resident status to a foreign national referred to in subsection 9(1) if the foreign national does not meet the province’s selection criteria applicable to that foreign national.
In 2020, s. 25 is much longer, and reads:
25 (1) Subject to subsection (1.2), the Minister must, on request of a foreign national in Canada who applies for permanent resident status and who is inadmissible — other than under section 34, 35 or 37 — or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, and may, on request of a foreign national outside Canada — other than a foreign national who is inadmissible under section 34, 35 or 37 — who applies for a permanent resident visa, examine the circumstances concerning the foreign national and may grant the foreign national permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligations of this Act if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to the foreign national,Read more ›
Section 15 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination. Aidan Campbell joins to discuss the application of s. 15 of the Charter to Canadian immigration law and the implications recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Fraser v. Canada.
Aidan Campbell is an Associate at Mahon & Company, a progressive firm which practices in Criminal Law, Immigration and Refugee Law, Public Interest & Constitutional Litigation, Sex Worker Rights, Prisoners’ Rights, Professional Discipline. Extradition Law and Tenants’ Rights
Section 15 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that:
- (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.
Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat,  2 S.C.R. 548, at paras. 19‑20) provides that to prove a prima facie violation of s. 15(1) , a claimant must demonstrate that the impugned law or state action:
- on its face or in its impact,
On October 30, 2020, Marco Mendicino, Canada’s Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”), tabled Canada’s 2020 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration. The publication of the Report to Parliament on Immigration is an annual occurrence in which Canada’s immigration department summarizes Canadian immigration statistics of the previous year and provides immigration levels planning for the future. This year’s report was especially anticipated because of uncertainty over how Canada’s planned immigration levels would be impacted by COVID-19.
Where We Are Coming From
In 2019, Canada welcomed 341,180 permanent residents, the third highest level of immigration in the country’s history, exceeded only by 1912 and 1913. Of this, 74,586 were individuals who transitioned from temporary resident status to permanent. The economic immigration class continued to be the largest source of permanent resident admissions, at approximately 58% of all admissions in 2019. Overall numbers were also up for Canada’s family reunification, protected person and humanitarian classes.
IRCC in 2019 also approved 404,369 work permits and 402,427 study permits. When accompanying family members are factored in, this means that the number of people who entered Canada with temporary status greatly exceeded the number of permanent residents admitted.
To briefly digress, when it comes to the impacts of immigration on Canada’s economy, housing prices, social cohesion, etc., the media often focuses on the number of permanent residents admitted to Canada. However, as can be seen in the above statistics, the admission of permanent residents only tells part of the story regarding who is coming to Canada, and is not reflective of the total number of people actually admitted to Canada.
In the 2019 Report to Parliament on Immigration, IRCC stated that its goal was to welcome approximately 341,000 people as permanent residents.Read more ›
In this episode we provide an overview of family law issues that immigrants and their Canadian sponsors should be aware of, inlcuding the recognition of foreign marriages, how divorce works, threatening to have an ex-spouse deported and the difference between common-law and marriage and getting a marriage anulled.
Ari Wormelli practices family law with YLAW Group.
Borderlines · #40 – Family Law Concepts That Immigrants and their Sponsors Should Understand, with Ari Wormelli » Read more about: Borderlines Podcast Episode 40 – Family Law Concepts That Immigrants and their Sponsors Should Understand, with Ari Wormelli »Read more ›
Aris Daghighian is a senior associate with Green and Spiegel LLP in Toronto. He represented the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers as intervenors in Brown v. Canada, 2020 FCA 130.
In this episode we discuss the issues raised in the case, including how immigration detention works in Canada, what the disclosure obligations should be on the government in an immigration detention proceeding and whether there should be a maximum time that someone can be held in immigration detention.
Borderlines · #39 – Immigration Detention Hearings after Brown v. Canada, with Aris Daghighian » Read more about: Borderlines Podcast Episode 39 – Immigration Detention Hearings after Brown v. Canada, with Aris Daghighian »Read more ›
Civil forfeiture is a process in which the government seizes assets from persons suspected of involvement with crime without necessarily charging the owners with wrongdoing. Did you know that in British Columbia the government can seize and forfeit your car if you speed? Or that police can “seize first ask later” for property that is less than $75,000? This was a fascinating look at an area of law that receives little scrutiny, especially in how it can relate to immigration.
Bibhas Vaze is a criminal defence lawyer in Vancouver.
4:45 – An overview of New Can and how it relates to civil forfeiture.
5:30 – What is civil forfeiture?
13:15 – Who has the onus of proving there is a tracing of property to unlawful activity?
16:50 – Can the government seize property that is partially the proceed of crime or that was used to commit unlawful activity?
17:10 – What is unlawful activity in the civil forfeiture context?
19:20 – What is the size of British Columbia’s Civil Forfeiture Office? How much property has it seized since its inception?
20:30 – Do all civil forfeiture cases have to go to trial?
25:10 – When is the property actually seized?
29:00 – What level of connection between the unlawful activity and the property is necessary in order for property to be seized?
32:20 – What is constitutional creep, and how does it play into civil forfeiture?
37:50 – If someone is ordered by a criminal court to pay a fine or restitution, can they they be subject to civil forfeiture,Read more ›
The Supreme Court of Canada in October issued its decision in R v. Tran, a case which Peter litigated. Deanna, Peter and Steve discuss the issues that the Supreme Court addressed in this landmark decision, including whether conditional sentences are terms of imprisonment for the purposes of deportation and retrospectivity in law.
This was the first of two Supreme Court cases that Peter arguedin Ottawa this year. While he was in Ottawa for the second case, he joined Michael Spratt and Emilie Taman, the creators of the Docket, a fantastic podcast about criminal law in Canada. Peter, Emilie and Michael discussed all sorts of issues regarding the intersection of immigration and criminal law, and Peter even explained how he got into practicing immigration law.
Read more ›
Please note that none of the information on this website should be construed as being legal advice. As well, you should not rely on any of the information contained in this website when determining whether and how to apply to a given program. Canadian immigration law is constantly changing, and the information above may be dated. If you have a question about the contents of this blog, or any question about Canadian immigration law, please contact the Author.
- Business and Entrepreneur Immigrantion
- Citizenship Applications and Revocations
- Family Class (Spousal Sponsorships, Parents & Grandparents)
- Humanitarian and Compassionate
- Immigration and Refugee Board
- Immigration Consultants
- Immigration Trends
- Judicial Reviews
- Labour Market Impact Assessments
- Maintaining Permanent Residency
- Provincial Nominee Programs
- Skilled Immigration (Express Entry, CEC, FSWC, Etc.)
- Study Permits
- Tax and Trusts
- Temporary Resident Visas
- Work Permits