November 30, 2005: Azadvala v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
A monetary deposit required for immigration purposes may be refused if there are ‘reasonable grounds' to believe the deposit was paid with fraudulently obtained funds. In this case, a warrant in the US for the arrest of the applicant on a charge of fraudulently obtaining 27 million dollars met the ‘reasonable grounds' requirement.
December 1, 2005: Hamid v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
A child should be classified as a "dependent child" based only on their status at the time of application. Once an application is complete, the status of the dependent child is "locked in", and their status at the time the visa is granted should not be considered.
December 2, 2005: Mand v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
The Board was justified in giving deportation orders to the applicant for violating the conditions of the entrepreneurial category. Despite the contributions made by the applicant and his family to Canadian society, the deportation orders were justified because the applicant did not comply with his entrepreneurial permanent residency requirements.
December 14, 2005: Grinshpon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
The applicant was found criminally inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality. The court ruled that the Board was justified in finding that the applicants US criminal record in fraudulent securities transactions, wire fraud and interstate commercial bribery was equivalent to a serious criminal offense in Canada.
December 20, 2005: De Guzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
A removal order is not the only sanction possible against those who misrepresent information in order to gain entry into Canada. While removal orders are generally the most serious sanctions against misrepresentation, other sanctions may also be consistent with the framework created by IRPA.
December 22, 2005: El-Hajj v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
In rejecting a sponsorship application for the applicant's wife, the visa officer failed to adhere to a duty of fairness. The application was rejected due to the applicant's testimony about a separate relationship given in an interview done for an unrelated purpose several years earlier. The visa officer's decision was overturned, because the applicant was not notified that the earlier interview would be used to evaluate his sponsorship application, and was not given a chance to explain the circumstances of the prior relationship.
December 29, 2005: Ferguson v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
A pre-sentence report filed after a guilty plea is sufficient evidence to establish the Canadian equivalency of the foreign offense. In this case, the use of a forged document, described in the pre-sentence report, is equivalent in Canada to an offense punishable by a maximum of ten years, rendering the applicant criminally inadmissible.