Last updated on June 1st, 2021
Anyone who travels frequently understands the benefits of NEXUS membership.
At airports, NEXUS members avoid long line-ups and save time using automated self-serve kiosks at eight designated Canadian international airports. The wait-times are much less than they are for non-NEXUS passengers. As well, NEXUS members are expedited through Canadian Air Transport Security Authority airport security screening lanes. This is the case even on domestic flights.
Those crossing the US-Canada border by land enjoy a quick and simplified entry process using dedicated lanes. Wait-times are generally a fraction of what they are for non-NEXUS members. It is not uncommon for the NEXUS lane(s) to be empty while the non-NEXUS lanes have wait-times exceeding one hour.
If you’ve never heard of NEXUS, you should read more about it on the CBSA website here.
Considering all the benefits which membership in NEXUS provides, it is understandable why people whose NEXUS membership applications are rejected often seek recourse, as do people who lose their NEXUS.
Regulation 6.1 of the Presentation of Persons (2003) Regulations, SOR/2003-323 provides that:
NEXUS program (air, land and marine)
6.1 The Minister may issue an authorization that is recognized in both Canada and the United States to a person, other than a commercial driver, to present themself in the alternative manners described in paragraph 11(a), subparagraph 11(d)(ii) and paragraph 11(e) if the person
(a) meets the requirements set out in paragraphs 5(1)(a) to (f), subject to subsection 5(2);
(a.1) [Repealed, SOR/2015-83, s. 7]
(b) has their eligibility to obtain an American authorization to present themself on arrival in the United States in the alternative manners described in paragraph 11(a),Read more ›
Have you submitted an immigration application, gotten a negative response, and cannot figure out why?Read more ›
Last updated on July 21st, 2021
Many individuals think that either a visa officer, a Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA“) officer or an Immigration and Refugee Board member is biased against them.
This is not an argument to make lightly.
Test for Bias
In Committee for Justice and Liberty et al. v. National Energy Board et al., 1976 2 (SCC),  1 SCR 369, the Supreme Court of Canada held that in order for an individual to demonstrate that a government decision maker is biased, then:
the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the question and obtaining thereon the required information. [T]hat test is “what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically — and having thought the matter through — conclude. Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly.
As well, the Supreme Court of Canada has also noted that:
Regardless of the precise words used to describe the test, the object of the different formulations is to emphasize that the threshold for a finding of real or perceived bias is high. It is a finding that must be carefully considered since it calls into question an element of judicial integrity. Indeed an allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias calls into question not simply the personal integrity of the judge, but the integrity of the entire administration of justice. Where reasonable grounds to make such an allegation arise, counsel must be free to fearlessly raise such allegations. Yet, this is a serious step that should not be undertaken lightly.
Finally,Read more ›