This is intended to be a reference thread. I have titled it "Criminal Inadmissibility" but anticipate it will include discussions with references that are about security inadmissibility. And related issues.
Thus, for example, here is a reference and link to the statutory provision that prescribes "serious criminality" applicable to PRs:
Section 36(1) IRPA https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-6.html#docCont
The reason for starting this thread is to make note of a recent Federal Court of Appeal decision that definitively determined that the IRPA provision which equates the so-called "hybrid" offenses with indictable offences does NOT violate the Charter of Rights.
The decision is Mvana v. Canada, 2024 FCA 49, https://canlii.ca/t/k3k3f
It is NOT about a Permanent Resident, but rather a Foreign National. Nonetheless, it addresses Section 36(3) IRPA which applies to PRs as well as FNs.
This is the provision which means a criminal offence which can be prosecuted as either a summary or indictable offence in Canada constitutes an indictable offence, even if prosecuted as a summary offence, for purposes of applying the criminal inadmissibility provisions in Sections 36(1) and 36(2). This is the provision which means a driving while impaired offence conviction (among many others) could be grounds for terminating a PR's status based on serious criminality, because as an indictable offence it could be punished by up to ten years imprisonment.
What looms large in this decision is that it definitively affirms the validity of the provision in effect making all hybrid offences the equivalent of an indictable offence for immigration related admissibility.
What lurks beneath the surface is the reference to the mobility provisions in the Charter as authorizing different "treatment between citizens and non-citizens" in the law. In context this is about provisions of law affecting a person's right to enter or remain in Canada. And that may indeed be the full scope of how PRs might be treated differently from citizens. (I am only reading an online-based English translation, not an official version of the decision, which is written in French, and in conjunction with not being a Canadian lawyer this limits my ability to fully understand what this means.)
But even in that, this decision makes it clear that PRs DO NOT have an "absolute" right to enter Canada. The right of a PR to enter Canada is a subject often discussed in this forum in regards to PRs who are in breach of the Residency Obligation and concerned about what will happen when they arrive at a Port-of-Entry into Canada. In contrast, PRs do have a right to enter Canada that means they cannot be denied entry when they arrive at a PoE. This "right" is actually a privilege, a statutory right. But that right can be taken away by provisions of law which terminate PR status.
Other Recent Federal Court of Appeal decisions: There were two recent decisions regarding the scope of what constitutes "contrary to Canada's interests" in regards to certain acts that constitute inadmissibility on security grounds. This is weedy stuff and not likely to come up in the forum, but nonetheless the distinctions the FCA made are worth noting: to be the basis for inadmissibility the acts, based on being "contrary to Canada's interests," there must be some nexus to Canada's national security. In other words, for example, being engaged in espionage activities that have no nexus to Canada will not be grounds for a finding of inadmissibility on security grounds.
These cases in regards to Weldemariam and Yihdego are here, respectively:
https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/521383/index.do
https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/521382/index.do
Thus, for example, here is a reference and link to the statutory provision that prescribes "serious criminality" applicable to PRs:
Section 36(1) IRPA https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-6.html#docCont
The reason for starting this thread is to make note of a recent Federal Court of Appeal decision that definitively determined that the IRPA provision which equates the so-called "hybrid" offenses with indictable offences does NOT violate the Charter of Rights.
The decision is Mvana v. Canada, 2024 FCA 49, https://canlii.ca/t/k3k3f
It is NOT about a Permanent Resident, but rather a Foreign National. Nonetheless, it addresses Section 36(3) IRPA which applies to PRs as well as FNs.
This is the provision which means a criminal offence which can be prosecuted as either a summary or indictable offence in Canada constitutes an indictable offence, even if prosecuted as a summary offence, for purposes of applying the criminal inadmissibility provisions in Sections 36(1) and 36(2). This is the provision which means a driving while impaired offence conviction (among many others) could be grounds for terminating a PR's status based on serious criminality, because as an indictable offence it could be punished by up to ten years imprisonment.
What looms large in this decision is that it definitively affirms the validity of the provision in effect making all hybrid offences the equivalent of an indictable offence for immigration related admissibility.
What lurks beneath the surface is the reference to the mobility provisions in the Charter as authorizing different "treatment between citizens and non-citizens" in the law. In context this is about provisions of law affecting a person's right to enter or remain in Canada. And that may indeed be the full scope of how PRs might be treated differently from citizens. (I am only reading an online-based English translation, not an official version of the decision, which is written in French, and in conjunction with not being a Canadian lawyer this limits my ability to fully understand what this means.)
But even in that, this decision makes it clear that PRs DO NOT have an "absolute" right to enter Canada. The right of a PR to enter Canada is a subject often discussed in this forum in regards to PRs who are in breach of the Residency Obligation and concerned about what will happen when they arrive at a Port-of-Entry into Canada. In contrast, PRs do have a right to enter Canada that means they cannot be denied entry when they arrive at a PoE. This "right" is actually a privilege, a statutory right. But that right can be taken away by provisions of law which terminate PR status.
Other Recent Federal Court of Appeal decisions: There were two recent decisions regarding the scope of what constitutes "contrary to Canada's interests" in regards to certain acts that constitute inadmissibility on security grounds. This is weedy stuff and not likely to come up in the forum, but nonetheless the distinctions the FCA made are worth noting: to be the basis for inadmissibility the acts, based on being "contrary to Canada's interests," there must be some nexus to Canada's national security. In other words, for example, being engaged in espionage activities that have no nexus to Canada will not be grounds for a finding of inadmissibility on security grounds.
These cases in regards to Weldemariam and Yihdego are here, respectively:
https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/521383/index.do
https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/521382/index.do