DAN11 said:
The fact that he received a test invite it means he is ok - CIC would not have sent out a test invite if he is not fully cleared of security clearance/criminal checks. That bond seems to be ok with them, possible fine prints under that bond.
Not at all necessarily true. Note for example that all CIC has to see is something which suggests there has been a criminal charge made and it will shift the burden to the applicant to document just what the outcome is. In the very recent
Kamara case, for example, the applicant's failure to provide documentation showing whether or not the charge was being prosecuted as an indictable offence or a summary offence, was what triggered the denial of the application.
Note, for another example, that for some applicants CIC appears to have deliberately scheduled the next step (test or interview or hearing) when the applicant has a current prohibition, even if the applicant would prefer to wait while fighting the accusation, claiming innocence for example . . . and a CJ may proceed to deny the applicant even though the applicant was still fighting that which was causing the prohibition . . . and the fact that the applicant later wins (at trial or on appeal) does not invalidate a denial based on the prohibition. That is, even if the cause for prohibition gets thrown out later, the fact of prohibition in the meantime (pending indictable offence for example, pending Removal Order, and so on) is cause for the application to be denied, and the denial will be upheld even though, subsequently, the charge or such has been totally thrown out.
Just to be clear, similarly relative to the residency issue: there is no assurance that CIC has determined an applicant is qualified based on the applicant being scheduled for the test.
Bottom-line: being scheduled for the test is just a next step in processing and it does not confirm there is no prohibition or that the applicant is otherwise qualified.
HHH2000 said:
Yes, I also suggested him to disclose to the IO attending him, no matter what. His Probition officer checked his back ground and that shows no charges against him, he was charged under section 266 and peace bond given under section 810(1), if he fails to comply peaces bond then section 810(1) will stand in full force and effect.
Anyway, it is best in his interest to disclose and explain this on the day of test and let them decided about him.
HHH2000 said:
Folk
I just want to share the link, may be helpful to understand Peace Bond is not a Probation, I don't know CIC is convinced with this or not.
http://www.justicebc.ca/en/cjis/you/offender/no_contact/peace_bond.html
Some clarifications and an observation based on a Federal Court decision just published online today (decision dated May 1st):
The link to the British Columbia information about a Peace Bond does not say whether any particular Peace Bond is conditioned on a term of probation or not. As I posted above: what really matters are the details in the individual case, what conditions are imposed in the particular case. That is, the specific conditions imposed for the Peace Bond in issue are what matter.
The Criminal Code provision governing the Peace Bond is separate and apart from the provision specifying the offence charged. In this instance apparently the applicant for citizenship was charged with an offence as prescribed by Section 266 of the Criminal Code. That is the general assault offence. It is what is known as a hybrid offence. More about this below.
In any event, the Peace Bond itself is governed by (and available pursuant to) section 810 in the Criminal Code. It alone does
NOT dictate what became of the section 266 charge. In fact, no other charge is necessary to invoke the 810 procedure: an individual can be summoned and issued a Peace Bond with no other charges made or pending.
Many times, however, as apparently happened here, there is a criminal charge, and where it is a relatively minor offence (including in its facts) and the offender has a good record, the Peace Bond procedure is employed to resolve the charge, giving the offender a chance to avoid having any charges on his record.
And again, how these things go vary from case to case, person to person, from one prosecutor or another, and depending on what is acceptable to this or that local judge in whose jurisdiction the case falls.
In other words, knowing that there is the section 810 Peace Bond in place does not really answer what has become of the Section 266 charge. Ultimately, upon completion of the
conditions of the Peace Bond, it appears the 266 charge (assault) will be totally dismissed, as withdrawn, which is the equivalent of a not guilty outcome. It is possible, as I noted above, that perhaps the 266 charge (again, the charge of assault) was indeed totally withdrawn upon the Peace Bond being issued.
What appears to be good news for anyone in this situation:
A recent case (just published online today) may partially illuminate the impact of criminal charges which might otherwise constitute a prohibition pending during the application process but resolved prior to a final decision made on the citizenship application.
There is some (but not definitive) indication in this decision that if the prosecution has elected to proceed with the case other than as an indictable offence, that does not constitute a prohibition and thus would not preclude the grant of citizenship. My understanding is that if a Peace Bond is issued pursuant to which the charge is being withdrawn, that should constitute a definitive decision by the Crown to not proceed on the basis of an indictable offence . . . thus it should not matter if technically the underlying charge is as of now completely withdrawn or technically it is still pending but to be withdrawn upon completion of the terms of the Peace Bond.
In the
Kamara decision the case involved an as yet unresolved criminal charge, a
hybrid offence (meaning a charge which the Crown can elect to prosecute as an indictable offence or as a summary offence). It is not clearly indicated in the case, but the back-and-forth which took place seems to suggest that if that individual had been able to get the case resolved as a summary offence, it would not have caused a problem for his citizenship application . . . and it seems to suggest that the case would not need to be totally resolved, so long as the Crown had made the election to proceed on the basis of a summary offence rather than an indictable offence.
Note that Criminal Code section 266 is such an offence, that is, one which the Crown can prosecute under subsection (a) as an indictable offence, or subsection (b) as an offence punishable on summary conviction.
This Federal Court decision implies that if the Crown had made the election to proceed on the basis of a summary offence, that would not have constituted a prohibition, would not have precluded the grant of citizenship.
Hard to say if this really is the general rule. CIC appears to have made minimal submissions in the case. But it sure looks like there would have been no problem if the applicant, in this
Kamara case, could have gotten the Crown to proceed even on the basis of a summary offence (a deal resulting in a Peace Bond and the charge withdrawn would be even better, much better).
What this might mean for Peace Bond cases:
It might mean (I am not a Canadian lawyer so I cannot be sure) that applicants who resolve a pending charge by accepting a Peace Bond that results in the charge being withdrawn do not have to worry about this resulting in the denial of citizenship, whether the actual, technical withdrawal of the charge is immediate or is to take place in the future upon satisfaction of all the conditions of the Peace Bond.
General observation:
One might wonder why there are not very clear rules about what happens in these cases. I think the reason is that there are so many variables, so many different situations and types of cases and all sorts of contingencies, that it is impossible to specify in advance how this or that actual case will be assessed and handled. There is a similar amount of vagueness and uncertainty about a wide range of criminal charges and the determination whether they constitute inadmissibility for a Foreign National trying to visit Canada. Any attempt to state a general rule gets bogged down in the details relative to this or that specific case.
Personally I wonder whether there are clear guidelines at CIC, or consistent guidelines when comparing one local office with another. For example, the minimal input from CIC referenced in this
Kamara case arouses my curiosity -- it is almost as if CIC wanted to avoid revealing much about its internal policies and practices in these cases.
