Some Gnanapragasam and Charter Challenges Follow-up:
While it was just posted to the Federal Court website yesterday, and so far is still not showing up at CanII, Justice Henry S. Brown's decision/ruling itself is dated May 2, 2024.
It is currently available here: https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/525671/index.do and the citation is 2024 FC 761
The other cases in which the Charter challenges to the automatic loss of PR upon cessation are continued, and which I referenced above as IMM-5466-23 and IMM-5481-23, are:
I do not know why there are two cases involving Roman Slepcsik. I am posting these details so that these cases can be better followed, noting though that for me it is more difficult to follow cases based on the IMM number (but that's all I can see so far for the Slepcsik cases).
A hearing in the remaining Slepcsik cases has not yet been scheduled.
I had not seen any references to the Slepcsik cases prior to this.
Obviously, the outcome of the Charter challenges is potentially a very, very BIG DEAL for all those PR-refugees who currently have cessation cases pending and all those who have traveled to their home country and could be facing cessation investigations potentially leading to cessation proceedings.
I have NO idea what the odds are of these challenges succeeding. I do not know how it works if a Federal Court rules the automatic loss of PR provision is unconstitutional . . . recognizing that decisions by the Federal Court do not constitute binding precedent in other cases. My sense is that an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal will be necessary to actually reach a definitive outcome for these challenges. And that will mean it will be a long while, many months, a year or more perhaps, before this actually reaches the stage there is settled law on these issues.
Some Follow-up Re Section 108(1)(e) IRPA alternative grounds for cessation:
One thing is clear: if the RPD determines that a PR-refugee's protected status is ceased based on changed conditions, that is pursuant to Section 108(1)(e) IRPA, rather than cessation on the other grounds specified in Section 108(1)(a) to Section 108(1)(d), that does not affect their status as a PR.
As noted, this was Gnanapragasam's escape.
And this is what Qin Yi Wang is seeking.
I initially did not give this aspect of Wang much attention because the decisions in Tung v. Canada, 2018 FC 1224, https://canlii.ca/t/hwgr8 and Karasu v. Canada, 2023 FC 654, https://canlii.ca/t/jx63x (both of which I have discussed in this thread before) made it seem that neither the RPD nor the Federal Courts were much if at all likely to give PR-refugees a Section 108(1)(e) way out. Even though there had been hints that the Gnanapragasam case went that route, that was not clear until this Gnanapragasam decision specifically said that was what has happened. Making it look like a real possibility, at least for SOME of those PR-refugees facing cessation and loss of PR status.
NONE of this changes the caution that (at least for now) PR-refugees should NOT obtain a home country passport and NOT travel to the home country. Too much at stake. There is NO guarantee, indeed not much if any assurance, that the automatic loss of PR provision will be invalidated and not applied.
While it was just posted to the Federal Court website yesterday, and so far is still not showing up at CanII, Justice Henry S. Brown's decision/ruling itself is dated May 2, 2024.
It is currently available here: https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/525671/index.do and the citation is 2024 FC 761
The other cases in which the Charter challenges to the automatic loss of PR upon cessation are continued, and which I referenced above as IMM-5466-23 and IMM-5481-23, are:
Roman Slepcsik versus Minister of Citizenship & Immigration, Minister of Public Safety & Emergency Preparedness, and the Attorney General of Canada, which is IMM-5481-23, and
Roman Slepcsik versus Minister of Citizenship & Immigration, which is IMM-5466-23
I do not know why there are two cases involving Roman Slepcsik. I am posting these details so that these cases can be better followed, noting though that for me it is more difficult to follow cases based on the IMM number (but that's all I can see so far for the Slepcsik cases).
A hearing in the remaining Slepcsik cases has not yet been scheduled.
I had not seen any references to the Slepcsik cases prior to this.
Obviously, the outcome of the Charter challenges is potentially a very, very BIG DEAL for all those PR-refugees who currently have cessation cases pending and all those who have traveled to their home country and could be facing cessation investigations potentially leading to cessation proceedings.
I have NO idea what the odds are of these challenges succeeding. I do not know how it works if a Federal Court rules the automatic loss of PR provision is unconstitutional . . . recognizing that decisions by the Federal Court do not constitute binding precedent in other cases. My sense is that an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal will be necessary to actually reach a definitive outcome for these challenges. And that will mean it will be a long while, many months, a year or more perhaps, before this actually reaches the stage there is settled law on these issues.
Some Follow-up Re Section 108(1)(e) IRPA alternative grounds for cessation:
One thing is clear: if the RPD determines that a PR-refugee's protected status is ceased based on changed conditions, that is pursuant to Section 108(1)(e) IRPA, rather than cessation on the other grounds specified in Section 108(1)(a) to Section 108(1)(d), that does not affect their status as a PR.
As noted, this was Gnanapragasam's escape.
And this is what Qin Yi Wang is seeking.
I initially did not give this aspect of Wang much attention because the decisions in Tung v. Canada, 2018 FC 1224, https://canlii.ca/t/hwgr8 and Karasu v. Canada, 2023 FC 654, https://canlii.ca/t/jx63x (both of which I have discussed in this thread before) made it seem that neither the RPD nor the Federal Courts were much if at all likely to give PR-refugees a Section 108(1)(e) way out. Even though there had been hints that the Gnanapragasam case went that route, that was not clear until this Gnanapragasam decision specifically said that was what has happened. Making it look like a real possibility, at least for SOME of those PR-refugees facing cessation and loss of PR status.
NONE of this changes the caution that (at least for now) PR-refugees should NOT obtain a home country passport and NOT travel to the home country. Too much at stake. There is NO guarantee, indeed not much if any assurance, that the automatic loss of PR provision will be invalidated and not applied.
