Girlfriend moving from US to Canada with reckless driving charge

[richter]

Hi, this is my first time posting here. I have a few questions regarding my girlfriend visiting and then moving in with me to Canada.

Our plan is for her to come here in November and meet my family before she comes in January to move in. I've researched common law and how visitors from US can stay up to six months in Canada and then get a extension after those six months. I just wanted to confirm if this is a valid method of reaching common law? After the first year we plan on applying for PR and I believe that takes another year to process.

Anyway, onto my main question; my girlfriend has had a reckless driving charge which was more then 5 years ago. About 6-7 years now. We are concerned that she will be denied entry into Canada. We've researched a lot and found that they wont deny entry unless the charge was reduced to reckless driving. However, reckless driving alone shouldn't be a problem. Is this true?

Any information would be helpful as we have been waiting years and really want to make this happen. Thanks!

 

[jes_ON]

Hi, this is my first time posting here. I have a few questions regarding my girlfriend visiting and then moving in with me to Canada.

Our plan is for her to come here in November and meet my family before she comes in January to move in. I've researched common law and how visitors from US can stay up to six months in Canada and then get a extension after those six months. I just wanted to confirm if this is a valid method of reaching common law? After the first year we plan on applying for PR and I believe that takes another year to process.

Anyway, onto my main question; my girlfriend has had a reckless driving charge which was more then 5 years ago. About 6-7 years now. We are concerned that she will be denied entry into Canada. We've researched a lot and found that they wont deny entry unless the charge was reduced to reckless driving. However, reckless driving alone shouldn't be a problem. Is this true?

Any information would be helpful as we have been waiting years and really want to make this happen. Thanks!

It depends on exactly what she did, the charge would be evaluated against Canada's code to see what the equivalent charge would be here. There is the potential for it to be a criminal offense, so it might be wise to invest in a consultation with a lawyer.
https://www.legalline.ca/legal-answers/careless-driving-dangerous-driving-and-criminal-negligence/

If it is not so serious, then IRCC will not be concerned about it...

 

[LifeDreamer]

It depends on exactly what she did, the charge would be evaluated against Canada's code to see what the equivalent charge would be here. There is the potential for it to be a criminal offense, so it might be wise to invest in a consultation with a lawyer.
https://www.legalline.ca/legal-answers/careless-driving-dangerous-driving-and-criminal-negligence/

If it is not so serious, then IRCC will not be concerned about it...

This is incorrect. It depends on the language of the statute under which the conviction was entered, if it were narrower in scope than the equivalent charge in Canada then it doesn't matter what she did. If it were wider in scope (which is common in the US) then an analysis would made into the circumstances as inferred from the judgment decision to try and make a reduced version of the foreign law that is narrower or equivalent to the Canadian charge. If that was not possible then the applicant is admissible. It doesn't matter what the applicant actually did or admits doing, or what is contained in police reports or investigations or any inadmissible evidence. The comparison looks only to the law and what conduct was proven in court.

For reckless driving in particular, there are court precedents that require the immigration officer to look into the circumstances of the charge and determine the mens rea component in addition to the previous analysis. This is very limited and usually is applied in cases where people receive a reckless driving charge simply because they were speeding or because it was raining..etc as what commonly happens in some US states.

 

[LifeDreamer]

Hi, this is my first time posting here. I have a few questions regarding my girlfriend visiting and then moving in with me to Canada.

Our plan is for her to come here in November and meet my family before she comes in January to move in. I've researched common law and how visitors from US can stay up to six months in Canada and then get a extension after those six months. I just wanted to confirm if this is a valid method of reaching common law? After the first year we plan on applying for PR and I believe that takes another year to process.

Anyway, onto my main question; my girlfriend has had a reckless driving charge which was more then 5 years ago. About 6-7 years now. We are concerned that she will be denied entry into Canada. We've researched a lot and found that they wont deny entry unless the charge was reduced to reckless driving. However, reckless driving alone shouldn't be a problem. Is this true?

Any information would be helpful as we have been waiting years and really want to make this happen. Thanks!

You will need to provide me with the arrest year, the state where the reckless driving conviction happened and the statute code for the offense. It is found in court papers and usually starts with §.

 

[sgrv]

@LifeDreamer I stumbled across your posts, and would really appreciate it if you could help shed some light on my situation. I recently submitted my FSW PR application, and I'm worried if I will be found criminally inadmissible. The facts are as follows:

1. In August 2016, I was charged with "Inattentive or Careless Driving" under section 49-1401(3) of the Idaho Statutes in the state of Idaho, USA, for driving at 103mph in a 80mph zone.

2. Since I was an out-of-state (California) driver, I also paid a $300 bond at the time of receiving the ticket and promised to appear in court on the designated date.

3. The next day, I spoke to the prosecutor on the telephone and he offered that the court would dismiss the charge without a trial/hearing and I would forfeit my bond. I agreed, and the charge was dismissed without a trial/hearing.

4. The dismissal order signed by the judge (which I submitted as part of my PR application, along with the ticket I received) says "Plea Deal: the court allows this out-of-state defendant to forfeit his bond and allows this ticket to be dismissed".

Even though I was not convicted, I'm worried that I may be found inadmissible under the "committed an act" provisions by equating my offence to Dangerous Driving.

The statute I was charged under is worded as follows:

Inattentive driving shall be considered a lesser offense than reckless driving and shall be applicable in those circumstances where the conduct of the operator has been inattentive, careless or imprudent, in light of the circumstances then existing, rather than heedless or wanton, or in those cases where the danger to persons or property by the motor vehicle operator’s conduct is slight. Every person convicted of inattentive driving under this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and may be sentenced to jail for not more than ninety (90) days or may be fined not more than three hundred dollars ($300), or may be punished by both fine and imprisonment.

https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title49/t49ch14/sect49-1401/

Could this be considered a narrower version of Dangerous Driving?

 

[LifeDreamer]

You are clearly admissible. The careless driving charge is wider in scope than dangerous driving, the mens rea component is not satisfied for just 23mph and you were not even convicted for that. It doesn't matter how your case transpired because it has no effect on your admissibility.

For your information, the "committing act" provision applies when you have charges pending, or if charges can be laid in the future. Some unusual circumstances also apply for foreign jurisdictions in corrupted countries where people may escape justice. However, for any jurisdiction in the US if the case came to court and was disposed of (as in your case) then it no longer applies because of the double jeopardy principle.

 

[sgrv]

You are clearly admissible. The careless driving charge is wider in scope than dangerous driving, the mens rea component is not satisfied for just 23mph and you were not even convicted for that. It doesn't matter how your case transpired because it has no effect on your admissibility.

For your information, the "committing act" provision applies when you have charges pending, or if charges can be laid in the future. Some unusual circumstances also apply for foreign jurisdictions in corrupted countries where people may escape justice. However, for any jurisdiction in the US if the case came to court and was disposed of (as in your case) then it no longer applies because of the double jeopardy principle.

Thank you very much @LifeDreamer, you have eased my mind.

I was just worried that "applicable in those cases where the danger to persons or property is slight" could be narrower in scope than Dangerous Driving since the latter does not specify the degree of danger.

I read the part where it says "committed an act" could apply when "charges were dropped or stayed in exchange for, or as the result of, a payment of a sum of money". I wondered if this could apply in my case since I forfeited my bond when charges were dismissed. Based on your answer, am I right in understanding that this is applied only when it is done corruptly in countries that allow for it?

 

[LifeDreamer]

The "committed an act" is unrestricted in law, meaning that theoretically anyone can be denied for it . There is no law that says what and where IRCC can use this, however there is a longstanding and consistent pattern that IRCC follows in its operational procedures which is that it respects the judgment of foreign jurisdictions, especially if the other country is founded on similar values to Canada.

 

[sgrv]

The "committed an act" is unrestricted in law, meaning that theoretically anyone can be denied for it . There is no law that says what and where IRCC can use this, however there is a longstanding and consistent pattern that IRCC follows in its operational procedures which is that it respects the judgment of foreign jurisdictions, especially if the other country is founded on similar values to Canada.

Thank you!