+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445

What happens if you are found to have obtained your PR and then citizenship by fraud?

May 21, 2018
8
0

zardoz

VIP Member
Feb 2, 2013
13,324
2,159
Canada
Category........
FAM
Visa Office......
London
App. Filed.......
16-02-2013
VISA ISSUED...
31-07-2013
LANDED..........
09-11-2013
i recently read about this case
http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1689-14&select_court=All
Full ruling is here:
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/306034/index.do
Judges ruling said PR was obtained by fraud and false representation (he’s now a Canadian citizen)

My question is: what does this ruling mean? Will it lead to deportation, or are there certain cases that will allow him to stay?

TIA
I would have thought that the following would happen, all subject to due process, of course.

1) his PR status would be considered void, as it was acquired by misrepresentation.
2) his citizenship would be considered void as a result of the voided PR status.
3) as a fugitive from justice (the sentence was never completed) he would be deported and extradited to Serbia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanadianGirl1234
May 21, 2018
8
0
I would have thought that the following would happen, all subject to due process, of course.

1) his PR status would be considered void, as it was acquired by misrepresentation.
2) his citizenship would be considered void as a result of the voided PR status.
3) as a fugitive from justice (the sentence was never completed) he would be deported and extradited to Serbia.
Thank you for your reply. Approximately how long do you think this sort of thing takes? I’ve never followed another case of fraudulant entry to Canada due to murder. I’ve thought about him possibly be handed over to Serbian authorities to serve his sentence, but IDK. I actually don’t know how long deportation of any kind would take. I know he lost all appeals and has final judgement in FC.
 

zardoz

VIP Member
Feb 2, 2013
13,324
2,159
Canada
Category........
FAM
Visa Office......
London
App. Filed.......
16-02-2013
VISA ISSUED...
31-07-2013
LANDED..........
09-11-2013
Thank you for your reply. Approximately how long do you think this sort of thing takes? I’ve never followed another case of fraudulant entry to Canada due to murder. I’ve thought about him possibly be handed over to Serbian authorities to serve his sentence, but IDK. I actually don’t know how long deportation of any kind would take. I know he lost all appeals and has final judgement in FC.
I really couldn't guess. What is your connection to this case? Do you know the person or are you in a similar position?
 

Seym

Champion Member
Nov 6, 2017
1,019
451
Kinda weird to ask about what would happen in the case of a murderer. It's nor exactly a light "fraud" and it's of zero interest to pretty much everyone in this forum...
Unless there's real concern regarding possible torture if he's handed back to his home country, the sooner he's sent back to his country to serve his sentence, the better.
 
May 21, 2018
8
0
Kinda weird to ask about what would happen in the case of a murderer. It's nor exactly a light "fraud" and it's of zero interest to pretty much everyone in this forum...
Unless there's real concern regarding possible torture if he's handed back to his home country, the sooner he's sent back to his country to serve his sentence, the better.
You didn't need to comment to be rude. I'm new here. Geez
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
4,911
2,031
This will involve TWO long posts. The first addresses the case raised here. The second (to come later) will address the revocation process generally.

My question is: what does this ruling mean? Will it lead to deportation, or are there certain cases that will allow him to stay?
Discussion is in reference to revocation of citizenship proceedings and Justice O'Reilly's decision in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vujicic, 2018 FC 116 2018-02-02
see http://canlii.ca/t/hqbl7

(I have probably referenced this case in another post but cannot recall the topic.)

Under current law, the Court may certify a question for further judicial review when the Federal Court makes a decision substantively similar to this, which would allow an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. However this decision does NOT appear to be based on or applying current law (which confuses me some; see context discussion below), and in any event NO question was certified in this decision. But again this decision appears to be based on the law prior to 2015, and that law specifically stated that the Federal Court's decision was final and there was NO appeal.

For further reference:

Current statutory provisions governing revocation of citizenship, including procedure, are Sections 10, 10.1, 10.2, 10.5, 10.6, and 10.7 in the Citizenship Act; see http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-4.html#docCont

Applicable statutory provisions from 2009 to 2014, which are the same in regards to revocation as those applicable in 2006, and which appear to be the provisions applied in this case, are Sections 10 and 18 of the Citizenship Act; see http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/20090417/P1TT3xt3.html



Why the Query Here:

@zardoz poses a key question, in effect asking why the query here? What does the OP want to know about this decision?

This is a key question because there are huge, huge differences between
-- what this case means for Mr Bozidar Vujicic (which is complicated enough), versus
-- what the case means generally, versus
-- what can lead to revocation of citizenship under current law and what effect that has​

In particular, given changes in the law, big changes, what this case means for Mr. Vujicic personally does not illuminate much at all about revocation of citizenship in other cases going forward.


If the query is specifically about what is in store for Mr. Vujicic personally:

If the query is specifically about what is in store for Mr. Vujicic, his lawyers are a far better source of information and opinion.

I do not have the time or the inclination to do the amount of homework and research it would require to otherwise so much as outline what MIGHT happen or how long it will take, other than to make the observation that challenged revocation cases can take a very, very long time and somehow result in multiple judicial proceedings. Moreover, the procedures leading to actual deportation can be complicated, take a long time, and are dependent on many personal factors beyond what is known based on the Court's decision.

It has already taken nearly a decade to reach this stage.

In any event, once there is a formal order resulting in loss of citizenship, the more likely (albeit not necessarily; I am not clear which procedure applies in this case) immediate outcome is that he becomes a PR and the next step will involve proceedings to determine he is inadmissible, leading to a removal order, which is an order for deportation, but deportation may itself be contested. There are provisions which might allow the determination of revocation to itself constitute a loss of all status in Canada, but it seems more likely to me that the revocation results in him being restored PR status (which is current law and was the procedure prior to 2015) and then subject to further inadmissibility proceedings.


Kinda weird to ask about what would happen in the case of a murderer. It's nor exactly a light "fraud" and it's of zero interest to pretty much everyone in this forum...
As I said, I do not have the time or the inclination to do much homework in reference to Mr. Vujicic's particular case. HOWEVER, this is not because I have made a judgment about how bad a person he is. I almost always find arm chair judgments about individuals to be disheartening. Especially when so few of the facts are known. In any event, there is a big difference between manslaughter (the offence for which Justice Reilly found that Mr. Vujicic was convicted) and murder. And the state of affairs in Serbia, and especially the Serbian justice system, at the time of Mr. Vujicic's prosecution, do not warrant a high degree of confidence in their integrity or validity. THE KEY, however, is that the revocation of Mr. Vujicic's citizenship is NOT ABOUT what constitutes the alleged crime in Serbia. It is about whether or not he made a misrepresentation about his background. It is possible that he could have disclosed the Serbian proceedings in his application for PR and persuaded Canada that the Serbian judgment was invalid or that on the same facts his acts would not constitute a crime in Canada. BUT because of the omission, or perhaps overt concealment of the judgment against him, Canadian immigration authorities were denied an opportunity to examine and consider the relevant information to make any such a determination.

That is, this is a case about whether he made a material misrepresentation in obtaining PR status, NOT about whether he should or should not have been granted PR status. Not about whether he did acts constituting what would be a crime if they were done in Canada which would kept him from becoming a PR.



Some Further Context; Old Law:

The precise meaning and effect of this particular decision is difficult to unravel because the Court was applying, apparently, the Citizenship Act provisions for revocation which applied in 2009. At least the Annex cites and quotes the version of the Citizenship Act applicable in 2009, and it is that law which Justice O'Reilly appears to apply in the decision itself.

2009 was the year Vujicic was notified by the Minister of proceedings to revoke his citizenship. On its face this case illustrates how long, and presumably how complicated, the process to revoke citizenship can be . . . not necessarily how long it will be, but how long it can take when contested by the subject of the proceedings to revoke citizenship.

I believe (have not confirmed) that the provision cited and applied was also the law at the time Vujicic obtained his citizenship, in 2006.

The law governing revocation of citizenship has been amended several times in the meantime, with some major changes taking effect in 2015, imposing a draconian procedure which virtually made it easier to revoke citizenship than the procedure for terminating PR status. There were further major changes implemented in 2017, rolling back the more draconian procedural provisions (the 2015 changes implemented by Harper's government), but these changes rendered the current law quite different from the law prior to 2015, including in particular the law applicable in either 2009 or 2006.

I do not fully understand why the Federal Court was applying the older version of law. There may be some older posts (spring of 2017 perhaps; but maybe it was in 2015 when the Harper changes were coming into effect) in which I get into the weeds about the procedure for revoking citizenship versus the substantive law governing grounds for revoking citizenship, and how changes in the law were or were not applicable going forward. But I do not recall what I learned and shared about this. This has to do with the applicable transition provisions in various enactments, especially in Bill C-24 adopted in 2015, and Bill C-6 adopted in 2017, but is also affected by some intervening Court decisions and, I think, some consent judgments or stipulations involving certain parties in various proceedings. It is not worth spinning wheels in an effort to more fully grasp the particulars in this Vujicic case.

In any event, the Federal Court decision is just one part of the process to revoke a naturalized citizen's citizenship. It is of course a key part, the decision itself signaling the case for revocation is strong and that the ultimate outcome of the proceedings to revoke citizenship will in fact result in the revocation of Mr Bozidar Vujicic's citizenship. This may have already happened. Under current law a Federal Court decision like this allows the Minister to declare that Vujicic's citizenship is revoked. Under the older law (before 2015), the next step would be a determination by the Governor in Council, who then decides if the report shows misrepresentation and if so, orders the person ceases to be a citizen. I do not know which procedure will be applied (or already has been?) here.


Revocation Process Generally; what this case might mean for others:

These cases always invite questions about the process generally and about who and why and when others might have exposure. As I already noted, this case is not about the acts involved leading to charges and a conviction. A claim of innocence, even if well-founded, is no defense. Contrary to what some might think, this is a case about making a material misrepresentation in the process of becoming a Permanent Resident.

This is, of course, a big topic. And complicated. I will try to follow-up, in a later post, with some observations about the revocation process going forward. This may illuminate, for the OP, some aspects of what this case means for Mr Vujicic, but as previously noted the far better source of information and opinion about that would be Mr. Vujicic's lawyers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandyshine2009

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
4,911
2,031
My question is: what does this ruling mean?
I've just never heard anything like it. It was in our local papers.
Prior to 2008/2010, revocation of citizenship was RARE. Proceedings to revoke citizenship were limited to the most egregious or high profile cases (such as individuals identified as connected to WW II Nazi war crimes). Indeed, during the years Harper was PM, more proceedings to revoke citizenship were undertaken than had been undertaken in ALL Canadian history prior to Harper becoming PM.

I am not sure whether your reference to never hearing about such things is about the particular grounds for revoking citizenship in the Vujicic case, or that you were not aware Canada would revoke citizenship for misrepresentations made in the course of immigrating to Canada (not just in the application for citizenship).

But I understand why learning that Canada might revoke citizenship for something that happened before becoming a PR might invite questions and concerns. Most of us make mistakes. In the course of applying for PR, many of us may have failed to disclose every detail IRCC could consider relevant or material. Does this leave us at risk for having our citizenship revoked?

For me personally, for example, in my application for PR I did not declare each and every commanding officer I had while I served in the military. This is basically what Helmut Oberlander failed to do when he immigrated to Canada in the 1950s. He became a Canadian citizen in 1960. Proceedings to revoke his citizenship began in 1995. Last I am aware, he has another appeal pending regarding . . . I am not sure, the fourth or fifth decision to revoke his Canadian citizenship.

The difference between Oberlander and me is that he failed to disclose being deployed with a Nazi kill squad during WW II (acting as a translator, probably as a teenage conscript, that is a Ukrainian drafted by the invading Germans), whereas I left out some short periods of time I was stationed at and attending this and that school prior to being deployed abroad.

Just for reference as to how complicated revocation of citizenship can be, here are SOME (not all) the proceedings involving the revocation of Oberlander's citizenship:
Oberlander v. Canada (Attorney General), [2016] 4 FCR 55, 2016 FCA 52 (CanLII) — 2016-02-15
Oberlander v. Canada (Attorney General), [2016] 1 FCR 56, 2015 FC 46 (CanLII) — 2015-01-13
Oberlander v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 FCA 330 (CanLII) — 2009-11-17
Oberlander v. Canada (Attorney General), [2009] 3 FCR 358, 2008 FC 1200 (CanLII) — 2008-10-27
Oberlander v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] 1 FCR 3, 2004 FCA 213 (CanLII) — 2004-05-31
Oberlander v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FC 944 (CanLII) — 2003-08-01

Am I at risk for having my citizenship revoked because I failed, in my application for PR, to disclose each and every command I served with while in the military?

I do not think so. (And I surely hope not!)

But it is not easy to clearly or definitively explain why not given the ruling about Oberlander's omission. Sure, the fact that he was drafted by the Germans, who invaded the Ukraine and conscripted many of its young men, resulting in serving with a unit that committed war crimes is a huge, huge difference, BUT there is NO allegation that Oberlander himself engaged in any war crimes. Which is to say that the revocation proceedings (his citizenship was first revoked in 2001 as I recall) against him are not based on war crimes but based on his failure to disclose he served with a unit which consisted of numerous individuals who systematically did engage in war crimes.

In any event, many may sincerely wonder what makes the difference between failing to disclose something thought unimportant and something which can be construed to be a material misrepresentation leading to the revocation of citizenship.

And this is itself a huge, and largely separate subject: what sort of misrepresentation, especially omission, will constitute grounds for revoking citizenship?

GROUNDS
for the revocation of citizenship are specified in Section 10 in the Citizenship Act. See http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-4.html#docCont

Basically there is one ground: FRAUD. That is, "false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances." This has, essentially, always been a ground for revoking citizenship.

There is a distinction in the grounds and procedure for fraud (misrepresentation, omission) based on what fact(s) or material circumstances were falsely represented or concealed, treating cases involving things like war crimes, engaging in organized criminal organizations, or engaging in terrorism, differently from those involving other circumstances, including treating fraud as to serious criminality the same as other fraud (such as misrepresentations about job skills in a PR visa app). Without wandering too far into the weeds, cases related to war crimes and such have a more direct path to deportation (at least technically).

What is of concern for most, however, is revocation for what is essentially ordinary fraud. That is, the question many ask is what makes the difference between failing to disclose something thought to be unimportant versus something which the Canadian government might construe to be a material misrepresentation sufficient to constitute grounds for revoking citizenship.

What constitutes a material misrepresentation constituting grounds for revocation of citizenship is TECHNICALLY the same as what constitutes a material misrepresentation generally. Thus, one can look to scores and scores of IAD and Federal Court decisions over the years which closely examine and analyze what constitutes a material misrepresentation in a wide range of cases involving various aspects of Canadian immigration law, in addition to the dozens of decisions in citizenship revocation cases. That is, there is plenty of law and interpretation of law and application of the interpretations of the law related to alleged misrepresentation in immigration matters.

Again, in an effort to avoid wandering too far into the weeds in this regard, for our purposes here it warrants noting and emphasizing that even in the context of an allegation of misrepresentation in, say, a visa application, in practical terms IRCC has a fairly high bar for making such charges. IRCC typically treats scores of inaccuracies and minor omissions, and some not-so-minor omissions, as MISTAKES, not misrepresentation. Mistakes can still have a big impact on how IRCC perceives an individual's credibility, and bigger or more serious the mistake, the more negative impact it tends to have on the individual's credibility. BUT IRCC will rarely allege what one might call actionable misrepresentation UNLESS it is rather apparent there was a deliberate effort to mislead or conceal regarding a rather substantial fact or circumstance.

Thus, those of us who made some errors, whose PR applications contained an inaccuracy or two, or in which there was an omission (failure to disclose a brief employment for example; or my situation, failure to disclose ALL commanding officers I served with while in the military), have almost NOTHING to WORRY ABOUT . . . even in terms of whether the inaccuracy or omission might have triggered an allegation of misrepresentation.

FOR PURPOSES OF CITIZENSHIP REVOCATION the bar is practically much, much higher than that. This is a bit complicated if not convoluted because authorities, including Federal Justices, will emphatically state otherwise. The standard of proof, for example, is technically the same. There is, purportedly, NO higher standard for proving misrepresentation in a citizenship revocation proceeding than there is for other proceedings. In practice, however, at least historically, the citizenship revocation case tends to get scrutinized far more intently and critically than other misrepresentation cases.

While there was something of a draconian sweep of past grants of citizenship in the Harper era crackdown on fraud, resulting in the initiation of hundreds, perhaps thousands of proceedings to revoke citizenship or PR status, even in that it was largely (with some probable exceptions and unfortunate miscarriages of justice) focused only on the more egregious and obvious instances of outright fraud (most facilitated by a number of crooked consultants identified in the course of the aggressive investigations being conducted in that period of time). Typical cases involved the use of outright fraudulent Canadian addresses and employers by many individuals who spent very little time actually in Canada, and many of whom had similarly obtained PR status through a crooked consultant and phony job offers and such.

IT WAS NOT AS IF CIC DUG UP ORDINARY DISCREPANCIES OR OMISSIONS. THE SWEEP WAS FOCUSED ON OVERTLY FRAUDULENT SCHEMES.

Which is to say that even at the peak of efforts to expose false representations and omissions, the vast, vast majority of naturalized citizens were NOT affected even if there were significant inaccuracies or omissions in their immigration applications, from visa to citizenship.

Thus, generally, there is virtually NO RISK that IRCC will come across an omission or mistake and use that as grounds to revoke citizenship.

BUT what happens if IRCC decides to proceed with revocation? Say, for example, a disgruntled former spouse submits a "tip" to IRCC alleging that a naturalized citizenship was not in a genuine marital relationship when he or she was sponsored for PR, and there is enough circumstantial evidence to support suspicion the allegation is true.

What happens then . . . that will require yet another post.


To be continued.











 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
4,911
2,031
The former observations, in which I assert that usually (almost always), there is NO RISK of facing revocation unless there was an outright and overt scheme to deceive IRCC and obtain status or citizenship by fraud, warrant an important caveat:

The failure to disclose an arrest, criminal charge, criminal conviction, or sentencing for criminal conduct, tends to be handled far more strictly and severely. As many believe it should.

There is a reason why most applicants are now required to affirm, in writing, that there are NO circumstances which might constitute a prohibition THREE TIMES prior to taking the oath and becoming a citizen. First is item 16 in the current application form. Second is usually (almost always it appears based on most reports) attendant the PI interview (usually concurrent with the test event). And the Third is during the oath ceremony check-in (reporting about this is more sketchy, and this may not be required for applicants who take the oath very soon after the PI interview, particularly those scheduled to take the oath the same day as the test or within a couple days of the test). Almost every PI interview will include a question about whether any of the circumstances disclosed in the application, and those relative to criminal charges or removal orders and such in particular, have changed. Additionally, IRCC appears to still follow a process guideline implemented under Harper pursuant to which there is a GCMS record check done each and every time any action is taken on the application, and this usually will trigger a hit for any name-record of an arrest, charge, conviction, or sentencing, in either Canadian RCMP or U.S. FBI/NCIC records.

Make no mistake: the failure to disclose an arrest during the four years prior to applying for citizenship, or while the citizenship application is in process, IS AMONG THOSE OMISSIONS MOST LIKELY TO TRIGGER MISREPRESENTATION ALLEGATIONS. If the failure to disclose is discovered before the oath, that will typically lead to the application being denied for misrepresentation and being prohibited from citizenship for another FIVE years. If the failure to disclose is discovered after becoming a citizen, this is one omission which is quite likely to trigger revocation proceedings and result in the revocation of citizenship. This results in being returned to PR status and being prohibited from a grant of citizenship for the NEXT TEN YEARS. (Does not lead to loss of PR status or deportation.)

For anyone who has an arrest or criminal charge, it is important to know what must be disclosed and to disclose it. Even if the applicant believes it does not constitute a prohibition, unless the applicant is near absolutely certain it is not a prohibition and it is not a circumstance requiring disclosure in item 16 (and remember, item 16 requires the applicant to disclose some things which are not a prohibition), it is better, far better to disclose it and potentially incur some delay while IRCC sorts things out and verifies there is no prohibition. AGAIN, THIS IS ONE TYPE OF OMISSION WHICH HAS A HIGH RISK FOR MISREPRESENTATION ALLEGATIONS, and potential revocation of citizenship later.


Still to be continued, what happens if and when IRCC pursues revocation of citizenship . . .
 
May 21, 2018
8
0
Thank you so much for your input. My main concern was for my family members and close friends, and the drastic laws to revoke citizenship. None of them have been even charged with any crimes, let alone convicted. I was not sure what misrepresentation meant, and what constitutes fraud, being as those immigrating did not have full understanding of what needed to be disclosed. I was worried that a small accidental mistake in disclosure would leas to the same fate. Thank you so much.
 

speedtex

Star Member
Apr 28, 2012
54
7
Prior to 2008/2010, revocation of citizenship was RARE. Proceedings to revoke citizenship were limited to the most egregious or high profile cases (such as individuals identified as connected to WW II Nazi war crimes). Indeed, during the years Harper was PM, more proceedings to revoke citizenship were undertaken than had been undertaken in ALL Canadian history prior to Harper becoming PM.
Fantastic explanation. My main confusion is this. How does a record of someone who committed egregious crimes and participated in WW II suddenly pops up within IRCC's database, we are referring to the years between 1933 - 1945 ( Some 60 years back) records right?. I seriuosly doubt there were any CCTV, email or smart video recorders, during this time, its amazing how IRCC usually quickly discovers this person was part of a notorious group, who had committed war crimes, some 65 years ago, and use such information against these bad people, but also a good thing.
 
Last edited:

zardoz

VIP Member
Feb 2, 2013
13,324
2,159
Canada
Category........
FAM
Visa Office......
London
App. Filed.......
16-02-2013
VISA ISSUED...
31-07-2013
LANDED..........
09-11-2013
Fantastic explanation. My main confusion is this. How does a record of someone who committed egregious crimes and participated in WW II suddenly pops up within IRCC's database, we are referring to the years between 1933 - 1945 ( Some 60 years back) records right?. I seriuosly doubt there were any CCTV, email or smart video recorders, during this time, its amazing how IRCC usually quickly discovers this person was part of a notorious group, who had committed war crimes, some 65 years ago, and use such information against these bad people, but also a good thing.
I suspect that much of the information comes from sources outside of IRCC, who then pass it on. Informants still exist even for things that happened 60 years ago. There will also be archivists and researchers still plowing through WW2 records.
 
  • Like
Reactions: speedtex

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
4,911
2,031
I suspect that much of the information comes from sources outside of IRCC, who then pass it on.
Quite likely. Indeed, for persons accused of complicity or direct involvement in Nazi war crimes there are organizations which have long been searching for evidence against them, and pushing their prosecution.

Fantastic explanation. My main confusion is this. How does a record of someone who committed egregious crimes and participated in WW II suddenly pops up within IRCC's database, we are referring to the years between 1933 - 1945 ( Some 60 years back) records right?. I seriuosly doubt there were any CCTV, email or smart video recorders, during this time, its amazing how IRCC usually quickly discovers this person was part of a notorious group, who had committed war crimes, some 65 years ago, and use such information against these bad people, but also a good thing.
Without revisiting the Oberlander history, my recollection is that this is one of many, many cases this or that organization (the search for Nazi collaborators has never ceased, so far as I know) dug up over the years. In Canadian proceedings Oberlander has not been accused of, let alone found to have engaged in war crimes (so far as I am aware from any of the news articles and court decisions I have read . . . which, by the way, I read years ago not recently). But I believe there is at least one organization which has been pushing for his prosecution as a war criminal.

I do not recall all the circumstances clearly, but as best I do this is an individual, a person born and raised in the Ukraine who was DRAFTED by the German occupying army, and this was when, I think, he was merely 17 or 18 years old (there are scores of media stories about Oberlander, and some say he was drafted the "day" he turned 18). As I recall the facts set out in some of the decisions, he was fluent in German and . . . Russian? I do not recall specifically. But he was supposedly assigned to be a translator for a kill squad. The more serious allegations (again, as best I recall, and noting that these are not allegations made in Canada so far as I know) are that he facilitated the torture of prisoners by acting as a translator during the interrogation of the prisoners.

The Canadian allegations are that he was assigned to this particular unit in the German army and upon immigrating to Canada in the 1950s he did not disclose being assigned to that unit (but did, I believe, disclose he served in the German army during the war).

A key element in many of the decisions is whether he could have escaped duty, the decisions concluding that he could have. I have no idea. My sense is that to be a deserter while serving on the Russian front was, at the least, seriously dangerous.

In Canada, from 1954 to 1995, apparently Oberlander was a model citizen, built a business, raised a family, has many grandchildren born in Canada as well as (I think) many great grandchildren.

The Internet, as usual, is filled with opinions at both ends of the spectrum, ranging from those who characterize him as a monster who escaped responsibility for horrendous crimes, to those who think he should be left to live his life in peace (he is in his mid-90s now).
 
  • Like
Reactions: speedtex