The Federal Court of Appeal has answered a question regarding inadmissibility under s. 34 of IRPA.
Borderlines Podcast #51 – Inadmissibility to Canada for Committing a Criminal Offence, with Sania Chaudhry
A discussion of when someone can be inadmissible to Canada for having committed a crime which doesn’t lead to a conviction. Cases referenced are Garcia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 141 and Dlieow v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 59 Sania (Ahmed) Chaudhry was counsel in Garcia. She is currently Legal Counsel (Professional Conduct Proceedings) at Real Estate Council of Alberta. 2:00 Introduction and an overview of Garcia v. Canada. 15:00 The purpose of Canada’s inadmissibility provisions. 17:10 What is the standard of proof for determining that someone committed a crime where there is no conviciton? 19:45 A review of Enforcement Manual 2 30:30 Determining equivalency and issues with inadmissibility findings where there is no conviction. 39:30 Dlieow v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 46:00 Living in a society where the State makes everything a crime.
Supreme Court Clarifies Dangerous Driving Law
The Supreme Court of Canada in 2012 clarified the law regarding what constitutes dangerous driving under the Criminal Code. The decision, R v. Roy, has implications for people who may be inadmissible to Canada for criminality. Indeed, in Jolly v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), the Federal Court of Canada affirmed that it will be a reviewable error if visa officers do not assess criminal equivalency for dangerous driving based on the mens rea standard articulated in Roy. Section 249 of the Criminal Code provides that: 249. (1) Every one commits an offence who operates (a) a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle is being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be at that place; In R v. Roy, the Supreme Court noted that (emphasis added): It is, therefore, critically important to ensure that the fault requirement for dangerous driving has been established. Failing to do so unduly extends the reach of the criminal law and wrongly brands as criminals those who are not morally blameworthy. The distinction between a mere departure, which may support civil … Read More
Inadmissibility Due to Non-Compliance with the Act
Individuals can be inadmissible to Canada for numerous reasons, including criminality, misrepresentation, medical issues, and non-compliance with Canadian immigration legislation. The latter reason, non-compliance with the Canadian immigration legislation, can seem extremely vague. Fortunately, the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Guidelines contains a list of the different frequently used reasons for declaring someone inadmissible for non-compliance with the Act. They are: Entering Canada to remain on a permanent basis without first obtaining a permanent resident visa. Entering Canada to remain on a temporary basis without first obtaining a temporary resident visa. Entering Canada to study without first obtaining a study permit. Entering Canada to work without first obtaining a work permit. Not answering questions truthfully or producing required relevant documents. Not submitting to a medical examination. Not holding a medical certificate that is based on the last medical examination. Not holding the required documents to enter Canada. Not establishing that the person will live Canada by the end of the authorized period. Where a person is subject to an enforced removal, returning to Canada without authorization. Working without authorization. Studying without authorization. Not leaving Canada at the end of the authorized period. Not reporting to a port of entry examination without … Read More
Federal Court Rules on Galloway Inadmissibility
The Federal Court has released its decision on the legality of the “decision” to prohibit former British MP George Galloway from entering Canada for having committed terrorism or been a member of a terrorist organization.
A Common Sense Approach to A44 Reports
Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act“) provides that an officer who believes that a foreign national or permanent resident in Canada is inadmissible to Canada (for criminality, health, overstay, working without authorization, etc.) may prepare a report alleging the inadmissibility (commonly known as an “A44 Report“). The Act further provides that once an officer prepares an A44 Report, then the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA“) (the agency generally responsible for this) may commence removal proceedings, or, when necessary, refer the matter to the Immigration and Refugee Board, an independent administrative tribunal. The use of the term “may” in the Act has caused much confusion. In Cha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FCA 126 (“Cha“), the Federal Court of Appeal (the “FCA“) declared that the use of the word “may” did not actually grant CBSA officers broad discretion to exercise or not to exercise the power to write A44 Reports and to commence removal proceedings when it believed that someone was inadmissible to Canada. The FCA stated (citations removed for ease of reading): In Ruby v. Canada (Solicitor General) at pages 623 to 626, Létourneau J.A. reminded us that the use of the word “may” is often a signal that a margin of discretion … Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Elements of Conspiracy
On March 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC“) in R v. J.F., clarified the elements of the offence of conspiracy. The decision has immigration implications because people who have been convicted of conspiracy may be inadmissible to Canada. Section 465 of Canada’s Criminal Code criminalizes the offence of conspiracy. Conspiracy is a form of inchoate liability. In other words, the actual result of the conspiracy need not occur for someone to be convicted under s. 465. For example, a person can be convicted of “conspiracy to commit murder” even if the murder does not occur. Furthermore, members in a conspiracy need not personally commit, or intend to commit, the offence which each has agreed should be committed. Any degree of assistance in the furtherance of the unlawful object can lead to a finding of membership as long as agreement to a common plan can be inferred and the requisite mental state has been established. Aiding or abetting the formation of an agreement between conspirators amounts to aiding or abetting the principals in the commission of the conspiracy. Party liability is limited, however, to cases where the accused aids or abets the initial formation of the agreement, or aids or abets a new … Read More
Top Source Countries for A44 Reports at YVR
In 2011, 1,108 people were declared inadmissible to Canada when they arrived at the Vancouver International Airport. The following chart obtained through an Access to Information and Privacy Act request shows these individuals’ source countries. The top 10 countries were: Citizenship 2011 United States 247 South Korea 137 Hungary 83 China 72 Taiwan 49 British 40 Australia 35 Iran 30 Hong Kong 26 India 26 Japan 26 Germany 20 Mexico 19
Should People Who Lose Their Refugee Status Be Deported?
Much of the media attention towards Bill C-31 – the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act – has been focused on its shortening of the time periods for processing refugee claims and its removal of some appeal rights for refugee claimants that were supposed to be introduced under the Balanced Refugee Reform Act. This past week, members of the immigration bar raised concerns about another questionable change. In short, Bill C-31 will make it so that refugees who became permanent residents of Canada will lose their permanent residence status if their refugee status ceases. Currently, the Immigration and Refugee Board may cease a person’s refugee status. Amongst other reasons, it may do so if the reasons for which the person sought refugee protection have ceased to exist, or if the person reavails himself to the protection of his country of origin. Until now, the cessation of refugee status did not result in the loss of permanent resident status. Accordingly, ceasing a refugee’s refugee status was rarely pursued where the refugee had become a permanent resident. Bill C-31, however, changes this. It provides that when the IRB ceases a refugee’s refugee status, then the former refugee also loses his/her permanent resident status. … Read More