Certified Questions – Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Citizenship Act

Updated November 2, 2017

 

NOTE: This list is not necessarily exhaustive. Questions that were certified in Orders and that do not appear in Reasons for Order may not appear on this list. If you are aware of any other certified question not appearing on this list, please contact us at media-fct@fct-cf.gc.ca .

 

For ease of reference, decisions rendered before the coming into force of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27 are no longer listed in this report. The decisions below were either raised under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or the Citizenship Act or refer to them.

 

 

 

 

Back to the main page

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS

REFUGEE PROTECTION DIVISION RULES

IMMIGRATION DIVISION RULES                                                                                                                          

IMMIGRATION APPEAL DIVISION RULES

CITIZENSHIP ACT

OTHER

 

LIST OF CERTIFIED QUESTIONS

 

 

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT, S.C. 2001, c. 27

INTERPRETATION

Section 2

“foreign national”

IMM-1552-06

“permanent resident”

IMM-1552-06

OBJECTIVES AND APPLICATION

Section 3

IMM-4055-06  IMM-4022-06  IMM-5204-13

ENABLING AUTHORITY

Section 4

IMM-7109-05

AGREEMENTS

PART 1 : IMMIGRATION TO CANADA

DIVISION 1 : REQUIREMENTS BEFORE ENTERING CANADA AND SELECTION

Section 11

IMM-98-01  IMM-318-05  IMM-7202-05  IMM-6-09

Section 12

IMM-5186-05

Section 14

IMM-7109-05

DIVISION 2 : EXAMINATION

Section 15

IMM-1094-07   IMM-8881-11  IMM-1937-15 

Section 16

IMM-88-05

DIVISION 3 : ENTERING AND REMAINING IN CANADA

Section 20

IMM-7202-05

Section 21

IMM-3758-04

Section 24

IMM-5340-00  IMM-4821-14 

Section 25

IMM-9174-04  IMM-7202-05  IMM-4022-06  IMM-940-07  IMM-3813-08  IMM-309-08  IMM-9573-11  IMM-1515-12

IMM-2593-12 IMM-7326-12 IMM-4406-13  IMM-1106-14  IMM-3821-14  IMM-1106-14 IMM-4542-14 IMM-1273-17

Section 25.2

IMM-1516-16

Section 28

IMM-121-05  IMM-325-06

Section 29

IMM-7625-05  IMM-1201-06

DIVISION 4 : INADMISSIBILITY

IMM-3411-16 

Section 33

IMM-88-05

Section 34

IMM-1357-03  IMM-5086-03  IMM-8656-04  IMM-88-05  IMM-5395-05  IMM-2579-09

IMM-1728-09  IMM-3310-09  IMM-5147-09  IMM-1474-09   IMM-3767-10 / IMM-3769-10  IMM-3103-12 

IMM-10493-12  IMM-7522-12 IMM-371-14

Section 35

IMM-377-02 (May 21st, 2003)  IMM-377-02 (October 1st, 2004)

IMM-5236-02  IMM-1145-03  IMM-88-05  IMM-506-07  IMM-3367-09

Section 36

IMM-88-05  IMM-1930-09  IMM-7208-13 

Section 37

IMM-4621-02  IMM-8912-04  IMM-88-05  IMM-4896-07   IMM-4760-11  IMM-6888-11  IMM-8666-11 IMM-2041-12

IMM-2409-12  IMM-2309-12  IMM-5626-13  IMM-1144-14  IMM-2995-15  IMM-1431-16 

Section 38

IMM-88-05  IMM-5186-05  IMM-2616-09  IMM-4112-09  IMM-4737-08  IMM-8494-11 

Section 39

IMM-88-05

Section 40

IMM-10475-04  IMM-5815-04  IMM-88-05  IMM-1522-11 IMM-6485-13

Section 41

IMM-88-05  IMM-1201-06

Section 42

IMM-88-05

Section 43

IMM-88-05

DIVISION 5 : LOSS OF STATUS AND REMOVAL

Section 44

IMM-5125-02  IMM-2347-03  IMM-6352-04  IMM-6353-04  IMM-7038-04  IMM-7625-05

IMM-6266-06 / IMM-6267-06  IMM-3154-07  IMM-3156-07  IMM-3333-09 IMM-8486-12

IMM-5314-14 IMM-7152-14/IMM-7153-14  

Section 45

IMM-4964-03  IMM-1318-04  IMM-2200-08

Section 46

IMM-1552-06  IMM-6485-13

Section 48

IMM-7941-03  IMM-4236-05  IMM-885-06  IMM-3375-06  IMM-2353-06  IMM-5938-06

IMM-150-07  IMM-5636-06  IMM-1396-10

Section 49

IMM-1552-06

Section 50

IMM-9107-04  IMM-3836-05  IMM-1472-06  IMM-4533-05

Section 52

IMM-9934-03

DIVISION 6 : DETENTION AND RELEASE

Section 55

IMM-1934-14

Section 57

IMM-1845-03 

Section 58

IMM-1845-03  IMM-2757-05  IMM-3538-09  IMM-6267-09  IMM-1934-14

DIVISION 7 : RIGHT OF APPEAL

Section 63

IMM-1552-06  IMM-5468-11 IMM-4225-12 IMM-3803-12  IMM-4406-13  IMM-41-14 

Section 64

IMM-3260-03  IMM-2139-03  IMM-655-03  IMM-472-04  IMM-3111-04  IMM-5154-04

IMM-8360-04  IMM-2453-05  IMM-3220-07

Section 65

IMM-4225-12 IMM-3803-12 IMM-4406-13

Section 67

IMM-3634-04  IMM-8906-04 IMM-4406-13 IMM-879-15 

Section 68

IMM-9738-04  IMM-8360-04  IMM-7131-05 IMM-8565-12

Section 71

IMM-7369-03  IMM-7688-04 / IMM-10094-04  IMM-8987-04

DIVISION 8 : JUDICIAL REVIEW

Section 72

IMM-1963-04  IMM-8863-04  IMM-9071-04  IMM-2353-06  IMM-3375-06  IMM-5938-06

IMM-150-07  IMM-5015-06  IMM-3145-07  IMM-1086-09  IMM-3079-09  IMM-1474-09  IMM-4225-12  IMM-3803-12

Section 74

IMM-6636-12

DIVISION 9 : CERTIFICATES AND PROTECTION OF INFORMATION

Section 77

DES-5-08

Section 78

DES-5-08

Section 82

DES-6-08

Section 83

DES-5-08

Section 85

DES-5-08

Section 86

IMM-5125-02

Section 87, 87.3, 87.4

IMM-5125-02  IMM-5635-12  IMM-10968-12, IMM-10972-12, IMM-10978-12, IMM-12609-12, IMM-11890-12, IMM-12541-12 

IMM-3431-13  IMM-2621-13

 

DIVISION 10 : GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 91

IMM-63-05   IMM-5039-11

PART 2 : REFUGEE PROTECTION

DIVISION 1 : REFUGEE PROTECTION, CONVENTION REFUGEES AND PERSONS IN NEED OF PROTECTION

Section 95

IMM-1868-04  IMM-5107-05  IMM-1133-15 

Section 96

IMM-3069-03  IMM-4181-03 IMM-150-04  IMM-2168-05 IMM-5571-05  IMM-3818-05

IMM-822-06  IMM-2208-06  IMM-4723-06  IMM-7117-05 IMM-7816-12 IMM-11315-12

IMM-3220-14  IMM-3582-13 IMM-67-14 

Section 97

IMM-923-03  IMM-5838-02  IMM-656-03 / IMM-661-03  IMM-9332-03  IMM-6045-04

IMM-3818-05  IMM-2669-06  IMM-6516-06  IMM-3077-07  IMM-4396-09  IMM-2597-11

IMM-3383-11  IMM-8048-13

Section 98

IMM-923-03  IMM-3194-02  IMM-2814-06  IMM-4071-06  IMM-192-07  IMM-1603-07

IMM-2147-08  IMM-4183-08  IMM-3786-08  IMM-3921-10  IMM-5890-11  IMM-7327-10 

IMM-2880-11 IMM-4410-12  IMM-11894-12 IMM-878-15  IMM-2919-15 

 

DIVISION 2 : CONVENTION REFUGEES AND PERSONS IN NEED OF PROTECTION

Section 101

IMM-7818-05  IMM-1570-08  IMM-5890-11  IMM-6395-11 IMM-5590-15

Section 102

IMM-7818-05

Section 103

IMM-1851-09  IMM-371-14

Section 104

IMM-371-14

Section 107

IMM-968-15

Section 107.1

IMM-968-15

Section 108

IMM-2010-11  IMM-6485-13  IMM-1407-14  IMM-4732-14  IMM-5302-14   IMM-5825-14  IMM-4174-14 IMM-1133-15

T-232-16 

Section 109

IMM-2283-07

Section 110

IMM-6362-13    IMM-5981-13  IMM-7630-13  IMM-7567-13  IMM-6711-13  IMM-6640-13  IMM-6639-13

IMM-8015-13 IMM-3700-13 / IMM-5940-14  IMM-7050-14  IMM-4974-15 

Section 111

IMM-6362-13     IMM-5981-13  IMM-7630-13  IMM-7567-13 IMM-6640-13 IMM-6639-13  IMM-8015-13

DIVISION 3 : PRE-REMOVAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Section 112

IMM-9593-03  IMM-1868-04  IMM-9071-04  IMM-1963-04  IMM-2228-04  IMM-8736-04

IMM-9174-04  IMM-2669-06  IMM-12508-12  IMM-12545-12  IMM-343-14 IMM-1516-16

Section 113

IMM-9593-03  IMM-9571-03  IMM-8736-04  IMM-7269-05  IMM-4055-06  IMM-192-07  IMM-6711-13 IMM-1516-16

Section 114

IMM-1516-16

Section 115

IMM-1868-04  IMM-3377-04  IMM-3634-04  IMM-6447-05  IMM-4510-11

PART 3 : ENFORCEMENT

Human Smuggling and Trafficking

Offences Related to Documents

General Offences

Proceeds of Crime

Prosecution of Offences

Forfeiture

Officers Authorized to Enforce Act

Peace Officers

Ticketable Offences

Debt Due to Her Majesty

Collection of Debts Due to Her Majesty

Transportation Companies

Sharing of Information

PART 4 : IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD

Composition of Board

Head Office and Staff

Duties of Chairperson

Section 159

IMM-7836-04

IMM-9766-04 / IMM-9220-04 / IMM-9452-04 / IMM-9797-04 / IMM-353-05 / IMM-407-05 / IMM-934-05 / IMM-1144-05 / IMM-1419-05 / IMM-1877-05 / IMM-2034-05 /

IMM-2150-05 / IMM-2709-05 / IMM-3313-05 / IMM-3994-05 / IMM-4044-05 / IMM-712-05 / IMM-470-05 / IMM-4064-05

IMM-3370-05  IMM-4127-05  IMM-3310-05  IMM-4637-05  IMM-5637-05  IMM-6316-05  IMM-7697-05  IMM-7261-05

IMM-396-06  IMM-7766-05  IMM-7770-05  IMM-6547-05  IMM-4817-05  IMM-1177-06 IMM-4534-06

Functioning of Board

Provisions that Apply to All Divisions

Section 162

IMM-6362-13     IMM-5981-13  IMM-7630-13   IMM-7567-13  IMM-6640-13 IMM-6639-13  IMM-8015-13

Section 167

IMM-4357-09

Refugee Protection Division

Section 170(g)

IMM-3194-02

Section 170(h)

IMM-3194-02

Section 170.2

IMM-1376-14

Refugee Appeal Division

Section 171

IMM-6362-13     IMM-5981-13  IMM-7630-13  IMM-7567-13  IMM-6640-13 IMM-6639-13  IMM-8015-13

Immigration Division

Immigration Appeal Division

Remedial and Disciplinary Measures

PART 5 : TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS, CONSEQUENTIAL AND RELATED AMENDMENTS, COORDINATING AMENDMENTS, REPEALS AND COMING INTO FORCE

Transitional Provisions

Section 190

IMM-1989-01  IMM-78-05

Section 196

IMM-4060-02  IMM-4088-02  IMM-4491-02  IMM-3873-02  IMM-4502-02  IMM-4500-02

Section 197

IMM-735-04  IMM-6961-03  IMM-2866-05  IMM-8360-04  IMM-3517-07

 

Repeals

Coming Into Force

 

Return to Top

 

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS, SOR/2002-227

PART 1 : INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION

Division 1 : Interpretation

Section 1

“excessive demand”

IMM-5340-00  IMM-2616-09  IMM-4737-08

“family member”

IMM-9245-04

Section 2

“dependent child”

IMM-9214-04  IMM-9245-04  IMM-2281-06  IMM-6139-06  IMM-5468-11

“marriage”

IMM-3162-08

Division 2 : Family Relationships

Section 4. Bad faith

IMM-6-09  IMM-5204-13

PART 2 : GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Division 1 : Documents Required Before Entry

Section 9

IMM-10482-03

Division 2 : Applications

Section 10

IMM-3758-04  IMM-1544-15  IMM-1104-15 

Division 3 : Documents and Certified Copies

Division 4 : Representation for a Fee

PART 3 : INADMISSIBILITY

PART 4 : PROCEDURES

Division 1 : Visa Issuance

Section 25.1

IMM-5366-16

Division 2 : Authorization to Enter Canada

Division 3 : Conduct of Examination

Section 34

IMM-5340-00

Section 49

IMM-2757-05

 

 

PART 5 : PERMANENT RESIDENTS

Division 1 : Permanent Resident Cards

Section 54, Section 59

IMM-8486-12

Division 2 : Residency Obligation

Division 3 : Permit Holders

Division 4 : Permit Holders Class

Section 65

IMM-5340-00

Division 5 : Humanitarian and Compassionate Considerations

Division 6 : Permanent Resident Visa

PART 6 : ECONOMIC CLASSES

Division 1 : Skilled Workers

Section 78

“Education”

IMM-552-09  IMM-1196-10    IMM-5481-09   IMM-2954-10   IMM-6455-09  IMM-5486-10  IMM-4516-13

Section 83

IMM-6394-09

Section 84

IMM-9245-04

Section 85

IMM-9245-04  IMM-5186-05

Section 87

“Canadian Experience Class”

IMM-1543-12

Division 2 : Business Immigrants

Section 88

“business experience”

IMM-1835-06

Division 3 : Live-in Caregivers

Section 114

IMM-6-09

PART 7 : FAMILY CLASSES

Division 1 : Family Class

Section 117

IMM-8447-03  IMM-2124-04  IMM-1737-04  IMM-318-05  IMM-1760-04  IMM-78-05  IMM-3635-04  IMM-9744-04

IMM-4375-05  IMM-3084-06  IMM-3162-08  IMM-3676-09  IMM-2622-09  IMM-5468-11   IMM-4760-11  IMM-8666-11

 

Division 2 : Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada Class

IMM-3486-08

Division 3 : Sponsors

Section 133

IMM-184-06

Section 134

IMM-3732-11

 

PART 8 : REFUGEE CLASSES

Division 1 : Convention Refugees Abroad and Humanitarian-Protected Persons Abroad

Section 139

IMM-2355-01  IMM-3566-11

Division 2 : Sponsorship

Division 3 : Determination of Eligibility of Claim

Section 159.3

IMM-7818-05

Section 159.5

IMM-4534-06

Division 4 : Pre-Removal Risk Assessment

Section 160

IMM-9283-04

Section 167

IMM-9593-03

Division 5 : Protected Persons — Permanent Residence

Section 175

IMM-3758-04

Section 176

IMM-3758-04

PART 9 : TEMPORARY RESIDENTS

Division 1 : TEMPORARY RESIDENT VISA

Section 182

IMM-7625-05  IMM-8426-13 

Division 2 : CONDITIONS ON TEMPORARY RESIDENTS

Section 183

IMM-2838-15 / IMM-2840-15

Division 3 : Work Without a Permit

Division 4 : Study Without a Permit

Division 5 : TEMPORARY RESIDENT VISA EXEMPTIONS

PART 10 : VISITORS

PART 11 : WORKERS

Division 1 : GENERAL RULES

Division 2 : APPLICATION FOR WORK PERMIT

Division 3 : Issuance of Work Permits

PART 12 : STUDENTS

Division 1 : General Rules

Division 2 : Application for Study Permit

Division 3 : Issuance of Study Permits

Division 4 : Restrictions on Studying in Canada

Division 5 : Validity and Expiry of Study Permits

PART 13 : REMOVAL

Division 1 : Removal Orders

Section 226

IMM-9934-03

Division 2 : Specified Removal Order

IMM-2779-12

Division 3 : Stay of Removal Orders

IMM-5636-06  IMM-3486-08

Division 4 : Enforcement of Removal Orders

PART 14 : DETENTION AND RELEASE

PART 15 : THE IMMIGRATION APPEAL DIVISION

PART 16 : SEIZURE

PART 17 : TRANSPORTATION

PART 18 : LOANS

PART 19 : FEES

Division 1 : General

Division 2 : Fees for Applications for Visas and Permits

Section 295

IMM-804-09

Division 3 : Fees for Applications to Remain in Canada as a Permanent Resident

Division 4 : Right of Permanent Residence

Division 5 : Fees for Other Applications and Services

IMM-326-09   IMM-1088-09

PART 20 : TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Division 1 : Interpretation

Division 2 : General Provisions

Division 3 : Enforcement

Section 326

IMM-655-03

Division 4 : Refugee and Humanitarian Resettlement Program

Division 5 : Refugee Protection

Section 338

IMM-5107-05

Division 6 : Court Proceedings

Section 350

IMM-1989-01  IMM-1603-01

Division 7 : Undertakings

Division 8 : Non-Accompanying Family Members

Division 9 : Fiancés

Division 10 : Fees

Division 11 : Economic Classes

Section 361

IMM-3020-02

PART 21 : REPEALS AND COMING INTO FORCE

Repeals

Coming into Force

SCHEDULE 1 : PORTS OF ENTRY

SCHEDULE 2

 

Return to Top

 

REFUGEE PROTECTION DIVISION RULES, SOR/2002-228

INTERPRETATION

COMMUNICATING WITH THE DIVISION

INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS TO BE PROVIDED TO THE DIVISION

Claims for Refugee Protection

Personal Information Form

Documents Establishing Identity and Other Elements of the Claim

Applications to Vacate or Cease Refugee Protection

COUNSEL OF RECORD

LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS

DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES

REFUGEE PROTECTION OFFICERS

DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION

SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE

ALLOWING A CLAIM WITHOUT A HEARING

CONFERENCES

FIXING A DATE FOR A PROCEEDING

NOTICE TO APPEAR

EXCLUSION, INADMISSIBILITY AND INELIGIBILITY

INTERVENTION BY THE MINISTER

Section 25

IMM-3194-02

CLAIMANT OR PROTECTED PERSON IN CUSTODY

DOCUMENTS

Form and Language of Documents

Disclosure of Documents

Providing a Document

Original Documents

Additional documents

WITNESSES

APPLICATIONS

How to Make an Application

How to Respond to a Written Application

How to Reply to a Written Response

CHANGING THE LOCATION OF A PROCEEDING

CHANGING THE DATE OR TIME OF A PROCEEDING

JOINING OR SEPARATING CLAIMS OR APPLICATIONS

PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED IN PUBLIC

WITHDRAWAL

REINSTATING A WITHDRAWN CLAIM OR APPLICATION

REOPENING A CLAIM OR APPLICATION

APPLICATIONS TO VACATE OR CEASE REFUGEE PROTECTION

ABANDONMENT

NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

ORAL REPRESENTATIONS

DECISIONS

GENERAL PROVISIONS

COMING INTO FORCE

SCHEDULE 1 : (Rule 1) CLAIMANT'S PERSONAL INFORMATION

SCHEDULE 2 : INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED ABOUT THE CLAIMANT BY AN OFFICER

 

Return to Top

 

IMMIGRATION DIVISION RULES, SOR/2002-229

DEFINITIONS

COMMUNICATING WITH THE DIVISION

PART 1 : RULES APPLICABLE TO ADMISSIBILITY HEARINGS

Information

Withdrawing a Request by the Minister for an Admissibility Hearing

Section 5

IMM-1076-03

Reinstating a Request by the Minister for an Admissibility Hearing

Decision

PART 2 : RULES APPLICABLE TO DETENTION REVIEWS

Information

Decisions

PART 3 : RULES THAT APPLY TO BOTH ADMISSIBILITY HEARINGS AND DETENTION REVIEWS

Information Relating to Counsel

Counsel of Record

Language of Proceedings

Designated Representatives

Conference

Fixing a Date

Notice to Appear

Permanent Resident or Foreign National in Custody

Documents

Witnesses

Applications

Non-disclosure of Information

Changing the Location of a Hearing

Changing the Date or Time of a Hearing

Joining or Separating Hearings

Proceedings Conducted in Private

Proceeding Conducted in Public

Notice of Constitutional Question

Oral Representations

General Provisions

Coming Into Force

 

Return to Top

 

IMMIGRATION APPEAL DIVISION RULES, SOR/2002-230

 

DEFINITIONS

COMMUNICATING WITH THE DIVISION

APPEAL BY A SPONSOR

APPEAL FROM A REMOVAL ORDER MADE AT AN ADMISSIBILITY HEARING

APPEAL FROM A REMOVAL ORDER MADE AT AN EXAMINATION

APPEAL FROM A DECISION MADE OUTSIDE CANADA ON THE RESIDENCY OBLIGATION

APPEAL BY THE MINISTER FROM A DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION DIVISION IN AN ADMISSIBILITY HEARING

CONTACT INFORMATION

COUNSEL OF RECORD

LANGUAGE OF THE APPEAL

DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE

PROCEEDINGS IN AN APPEAL

Alternative Dispute Resolution Process

CONFERENCE

FIXING A DATE FOR A PROCEEDING

NOTICE TO APPEAR

SUBJECT OF AN APPEAL IN CUSTODY

PROCEEDING IN WRITING

STAY OF REMOVAL ORDER

DOCUMENTS

Form and Language of Documents

Disclosure of Documents

Providing a Document

WITNESSES

APPLICATIONS

How to Make an Application

How to Respond to a Written Application

How to Reply to a Written Response

RETURN TO CANADA TO APPEAR AT A HEARING

CHANGING THE LOCATION OF THE PROCEEDING

CHANGING THE DATE OR TIME OF A PROCEEDING

PROCEEDING TO BE HELD IN PRIVATE

WITHDRAWING AN APPEAL

REINSTATING AN APPEAL AFTER WITHDRAWAL

NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

DECISIONS

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 58

IMM-1552-06

COMING INTO FORCE

 

CITIZENSHIP ACT

1 - Short Title

2 - Interpretation

3 - PART I - The Right to Citizenship

Section 3

T-1976-14

7 - PART II - Loss of Citizenship

11 - PART III - Resumption of Citizenship

12 - PART IV - Evidence of Citizenship

13 - PART V - Procedure

Section 13

T-232-16 

22.1 - PART V.1 - Judicial Review

23 - PART VI - Administration

29 - PART VII - Offences

32 - PART VIII - Status of Persons in Canada

SCHEDULE  - Oath or Affirmation of Citizenship

 

 

Return to Top

 

OTHER

Class actions

IMM-8863-04  IMM-5015-06

Clean hands

IMM-3402-03

Detention

IMM-3387-05  IMM-4038-08  IMM-4039-08  IMM-63-16 / IMM-502-16 

Estoppel

IMM-356-04

Federal Court

            IMM-1086-09

Functus Officio

            IMM-1546-13

Jurisprudence

IMM-377-02 (May 21st, 2003)

Mandamus

IMM-7109-05   IMM-10968-12, IMM-10972-12, IMM-10978-12, IMM-12609-12, IMM-11890-12, IMM-12541-12

IMM-2621-13   IMM-7972-13

Mootness

IMM-9071-04  IMM-1963-04  IMM-3375-06  IMM-2353-06  IMM-150-07  IMM-5938-06  IMM-6175-06

            IMM-432-07   IMM-2139-07  IMM-2455-07  IMM-4294-07  IMM-4023-07  IMM-475-07  IMM-1396-10

            IMM-7227-13  IMM-547-15

Other principles of law

IMM-7131-05

Privilege

DES-5-08

Procedural fairness and natural justice

IMM-9593-05  IMM-7836-04

IMM-9766-04 / IMM-9220-04 / IMM-9452-04 / IMM-9797-04 / IMM-353-05 / IMM-407-05 / IMM-934-05 / IMM-1144-05 / IMM-1419-05 / IMM-1877-05 / IMM-2034-05 /

IMM-2150-05 / IMM-2709-05 / IMM-3313-05 / IMM-3994-05 / IMM-4044-05 / IMM-712-05 / IMM-470-05 / IMM-4064-05

IMM-3370-05  IMM-4127-05  IMM-3310-05  IMM-4637-05  IMM-5637-05  IMM-6316-05  IMM-7697-05  IMM-7261-05

IMM-396-06  IMM-7766-05  IMM-7770-05  IMM-6547-05  IMM-4817-05  IMM-1177-06  IMM-964-07

            IMM-1937-15 

Redetermination

IMM-98-01

Right to counsel                                                                                                                  

IMM-3387-05

Stay of proceedings

IMM-4184-06

            Stare decisis

                        IMM-7935-14

IMM-3411-16

 

Return to Top

 

 

LIST OF CERTIFIED QUESTIONS

 

 

             Trial

 

             Appeal

 

                                                                                           Question

 

Answer

 

 

IMM-5340-00

Gibson J.

August 8, 2002

2002 FCT 844

 

Back to IRPA s. 24

Back to IRPR s. 1

Back to IRPR s. 34

Back to IRPR s. 65

 

 

A-560-02

Linden J.A.

Evans J.A. (Reasons)

Malone J.A.

November 12, 2003

2003 FCA 420

 

Is an applicant’s wealth a relevant consideration in determining whether his or her admission to Canada would cause excessive demands on social services in Canada and is a determination by medical officers in this regard determinative or is the decision-maker in respect of the applicant’s application for permanent residence in Canada required to consider the reasonableness of the medical officers’ determination regarding “excessive demands” in the light of all the relevant material provided to the respondent by the applicant?

 

Answer: An applicant’s wealth is not a consideration that a medical officer is legally required to consider when determining whether a person’s admission to Canada would cause or might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demands on social services in Canada.

 

 

Appeal allowed.

See answer below question.

 

IMM-2355-01

Dawson J.

December 17, 2002

2002 FCT 1303

Back to IRPR s. 139

 

 

A-38-03

Linden J.A.

Sexton J.A. (Reasons)

Malone J.A.

January 30, 2004

2004 FCA 49

 

1. Is the duty of fairness breached when a visa officer refuses to allow counsel to attend at the interview of an applicant seeking admission to Canada as a Convention refugee seeking resettlement?

 

2. What legal rights or obligations must a Convention refugee possess outside of Canada in order to be considered re-settled so as to have a “durable solution”?

 

Appeal allowed.

Answers:

1. Yes.

2. Not answered.

 

IMM-3020-02

Kelen J.

March 7, 2003

2003 FCT 281

 

Back to IRPR s. 361

 

A-133-03

Rothstein J.A. (Reasons)

Sexton J.A.

Sharlow J.A.

May 22, 2003

2003 FCA 233

 

 

In view of the Court’s findings of fact with respect to the legislative history and intent of subsection 361(3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations regarding immigrant visa applications filed before January 1, 2002, does the respondent have an implied duty to use his reasonable best efforts to assess such applications before March 31, 2003?

 

 

 

Appeal dismissed on the grounds of mootness.

 

IMM-1989-01

O’Keefe J.

March 27, 2003

2003 FCT 363

Back to IRPA s. 190

Back to IRPR s. 350

 

A-176-03

Décary J.A.

Létourneau J.A.

Noël J.A.

December 11, 2003

 

Is s. 350 of the Immigration Regulations, 2002, ultra vires the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in that the statutory provision the respondent asserts provides its raison d’être, i.e., s. 190; is not àpropos because (a) s. 190 applies only to (i) matters “under the former [Immigration] Act”, not the Federal Court Act, which were (ii) pending before Immigration, not the Federal Court, on 28 June 2002 and, in any event, (b) the matter giving rise to this application before the Federal Court was not “pending” on that date because the visa-officer had finalized the matter when she issued her refusal letter on 9 April 2001?

 

Appeal dismissed for delay.

 

 

IMM-1603-01

O’Keefe J.

March 28, 2003

2003 FCT 368

Back to IRPR s. 350

 

 

A-177-03

Décary J.A.

Létourneau J.A.

Noël J.A.

December 11, 2003

 

 

Is subsection 350(3) of the Regulations, supra, ultra vires of IRPA?

 

 

 

 

Appeal dismissed for delay.

 

IMM-4060-02

Snider J.

May 20, 2003

2003 FCT 634

 

Back to IRPA s. 196

 

A-249-03

Rothstein J.A. (Concurred)

Evans J.A. (Reasons)

Pelletier J.A. (Dissenting Reasons)

March 3, 2004

2004 FCA 85

 

 

Does the word “stay” in section 196 of the IRPA contemplate a stay that came into effect under the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 as a result of the operation of paragraph 49(1)(b)?

 

Note: Appeal heard together with: A-267-03 and A-374-03.

 

 

 

Appeal dismissed.

See Reasons.

 

IMM-377-02

Campbell J.

May 21, 2003

2003 FCT 639

 

Back to IRPA s. 35

Back to Other

 

A-283-03

Rothstein J.A.

Pelletier J.A. (Reasons)

Malone J.A.

March 4, 2004

2004 FCA 89

 

A-539-04

Létourneau J.A. (Reasons)

Rothstein J.A.

Malone J.A .

September 20, 2005

2005 FCA 303

 

1. Does the exclusion of a Convention refugee under Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention mean it has been established that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the refugee status claimant has committed offences at international law under section 18(1)(j) of the Immigration Act so that an Adjudicator conducting an inquiry into allegations made under section 19(1)(j) of the Act would be bound by the Convention Refugee Determination Division’s exclusion under Article 1F(a) of the Convention?

 

2. Does the definition of “crime against humanity”, found at section 4(3) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, include complicity therein?

 

3. Can a reviewing Judge apply a Federal Court Trial Division case retroactively to a decision of an Adjudicator which pre-dated the case?

 

 

Appeal allowed.

Questions not answered.

 

 

 

 

Question 2 recertified by Layden-Stevenson J.

October 1, 2004 (see below)

 

Appeal dismissed.

Answer to question 2: Yes

September 20, 2005

 

 

IMM-4088-02

Campbell J.

May 27, 2003

2003 FCT 661

 

Back to IRPA s. 196

 

A-267-03 (A-249-03)

Rothstein J.A. (Concurred)

Evans J.A. (Reasons)

Pelletier J.A. (Dissenting Reasons)

March 3, 2004

2004 FCA 85

 

 

Does the word “stay” in s.196 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27 contemplate a stay that came into effect under the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 as a result of the operation of s.49(1)(b)?

 

Note: Appeal heard together with:A‑249‑03 and A‑374‑03 (full minutes on A‑249‑03)

 

 

Appeal allowed. See Reasons.

 

IMM-98-01

Layden-Stevenson J.

June 13, 2003

2003 FCT 743

 

Back to IRPA s. 11

Back to Other

 

 

A-308-03

Décary J.A. (Reasons)

Evans J.A.

Pelletier J.A

March 31, 2004

2004 FCA 143

 

 

Where a visa officer refuses an application for permanent residence on redetermination, after a previous decision was set aside by the court, is the visa officer obliged to specifically state or set out the differences between the two decisions?

 

 

 

Appeal dismissed.

Answer: No.  

 

IMM-4491-02

Dawson J.

July 29, 2003

2003 FC 930

 

Back to IRPA s. 196

 

A-374-03 (A-249-03)

Rothstein J.A. (Concurred)

Evans J.A. (Reasons)

Pelletier J.A. (Dissenting Reasons)

March 3, 2004

2004 FCA 85

 

 

Does the word “stay” in section 196 of the IRPA contemplate a stay that came into effect under the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 as a result of the operation of paragraph 49(1)(b)?

 

Note: Appeal heard together with:A‑249‑03 and A‑267‑03 (full minutes on A-249-03)

 

Appeal allowed. See Reasons.

 

 

IMM-3873-02

Campbell J.

July 8, 2003

2003 FC 847

 

Back to IRPA s. 196

 

A-359-03

Rothstein J.A.

Malone J.A.

Sharlow J.A. (Reasons)

March 22, 2004

2004 FCA 120

 

 

Does the word “stay” in s.196 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 contemplate a stay that came into effect under the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 as a result of the operation of s.49(1)(b)?

 

 

 

Appeal allowed.

Answer: No.

 

IMM-923-03

Kelen J.

September 4, 2003

2003 FC 1023

Back to IRPA s. 97

Back to IRPA s. 98

 

 

A-422-03

Décary J.A.

Létourneau J.A.

Pelletier J.A. (Reasons)

June 30, 2004

2004 FCA 250

 

 

1. Can a refugee claimant be excluded from protection under Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention for committing a purely economic offence?

 

2. In light of Suresh, is the Refugee Division required to conduct a balancing of the nature and severity of the claimant’s offence against the possibility that he or she might face torture if returned to his or her country of origin?

 

 

 

Appeal dismissed. See Reasons.

 

IMM-5236-02

Noël J.

September 24, 2003

2003 FC 1085

Back to IRPA s. 35

 

 

 

 

In cases where a Visa Officer believes an applicant may have committed an offense referred to in section 4 to 7 of the Crimes against Humanity Act and that therefore the applicant may be inadmissible to Canada pursuant to section 35(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or section 19(1)(j) of the former Immigration Act must the visa officer specify the offense that she has reasonable grounds to believe the applicant has committed? (as submitted)

 

 

No appeal filed.

 

IMM-1845-03

Gauthier J.

October 21, 2003

2003 FC 1225

Back to IRPA s. 57

Back to IRPA s. 58

 

A-479-03

Stone J.A.

Rothstein J.A. (Reasons)

Sharlow J.A.

January 9, 2004

2004 FCA 4

 

Are the detention reviews made pursuant to s. 57(2) and 58 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27, hearings de novo and does the detained person bear the burden of establishing that he/she is not a danger to the Canadian public or not a flight risk at such reviews?

 

Answer: At each detention review made pursuant to sections 57 and 58 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, the Immigration Division must come to a fresh conclusion whether the detained person should continue to be detained. Although an evidentiary burden might shift to the detainee once the Minister has established a prima facie case, the Minister always bears the ultimate burden of establishing that the detained person is a danger to the Canadian public or is a flight risk at such reviews. However, previous decisions to detain the individual must be considered at subsequent reviews and the Immigration Division must give clear and compelling reasons for departing from previous decisions.

 

 

Appeal dismissed.

See answer below question.

 

IMM-5125-02

Mackay J.

December 8, 2003

2003 FC 1429

Back to IRPA s. 44

Back to IRPA s. 86

Back to IRPA s. 87

 

 

A-597-03

Strayer J.A.

Rothstein J.A. (Reasons)

Malone J.A.

May 28, 2003

2004 FCA 212

 

 

Does the procedure pursuant to ss. 44(2), 86 and 87 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act engage section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and if so, is any deprivation of liberty and security of person contrary to the principles of fundamental justice?

 

Appeal dismissed. Answer: No.

 

IMM-4502-02

O’Reilly J.

December 16, 2003

2003 FC 1466

Back to IRPA s. 196

 

 

A-12-04

Létourneau J.A.

Nadon J.A.

Pelletier J.A.

April 11, 2006

 

Does the word “stay” in section 196 of the IRPA contemplate a stay that came into effect under the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 as a result of the operation of paragraph 49(1)(b)?

 

 

 

Appeal allowed on consent.

 

IMM-5838-02

Gauthier J.

December 22, 2003

2003 FC 1514

 

Back to IRPA s. 97

 

A-31-04

Rothstein J.A. (Reasons)

Noël J.A. (Concurred)

Malone J.A. (Concurred)

January 5, 2005

2005 FCA 1

 

1. Does section 97 of the Act require that a person establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he or she will face the danger or risks described in paragraphs 97(1)(a) and b)?

2. What is the requisite degree of risk of torture envisaged by the expression “substantial grounds for believing that”?

3. Is the same degree of risk required under paragraph 97(1)(b)?

 

Answer:

1. The standard of proof for purposes of section 97 is proof on a balance of probabilities.

2. The requisite degree of danger of torture envisaged by the expression “believed on substantial grounds to exist” is that the danger of torture is more likely than not.

3. The degree of risk under paragraph 97(1)(b) is that the risk is more likely than not.

 

 

Appeal dismissed.

See answers below questions.

 

 

IMM-3260-03

Pinard J.

January 8, 2004

2004 FC 7

Back to IRPA s. 64

 

 

A-298-04

 

Does pre-sentence custody, which is expressly credited towards a person’s criminal sentence, form part of the “term of imprisonment” under section 64(2) of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?

 

 

Discontinued

 

IMM-2139-03

Campbell J.

January 16, 2004

2004 FC 63

Back to IRPA s. 64

 

A-79-04

Evans J.A. (Judgment)

Sharlow J.A.

Pelletier J.A.

September 29, 2004

 

 

Does pre-sentence custody, which is expressly credited towards a person’s criminal sentence, form part of the “term of imprisonment” under section 64(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?

 

 

Appeal dismissed for delay.

 

IMM-4500-02

Gauthier J.

January 26, 2004

2004 FC 121

Back to IRPA s. 196

 

 

A-93-04

Desjardins J.A.

Linden J.A.

Pelletier J.A.

November 9, 2005

 

Does the word “stay” in section 196 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, contemplate a stay that came into effect under the Immigration Act, R.C.S. (1985) C I-2, as a result of the operation of paragraph 49(1)(d)?

 

 

Appeal allowed on consent

 

IMM-655-03

Kelen J.

February 27, 2004

2004 FC 293

Back to IRPA s. 64

Back to IRPR s. 326

 

A-167-04

Létourneau J.A. (Reasons)

Sexton J.A.

Sharlow J.A.

December 15, 2004

2004 FCA 436

 

 

If a person has been convicted of a crime that was punished in Canada by a term of imprisonment of less than two years, and found to be a “danger to the public” under subsection 70(5) of the former Immigration Act so that person had no right of an appeal to the IAD under the former Immigration Act, does subsection 326(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, which refers to subsection 64(1) of IRPA but not subsection 64(2) of IRPA, bar an appeal to the IAD?

 

 

Appeal dismissed.

Answer: Yes.

 

IMM‑1357‑03

Gibson J.

March 4, 2004

2004 FC 310

 

Back to IRPA s. 34

 

A‑207‑04

Rothstein J.A. (Reasons)

Noël J.A.

Malone J.A.

March 4, 2005

2005 FCA 85

 

Having regard to section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international human rights instruments to which Canada is a signatory, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, is there, on the particular facts underlying this application for judicial review, any distinction in liability between the Applicant who was a minor at all times relevant to his activities on behalf of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq and an adult undertaking equivalent activities on behalf of such an organization without being a formal member of that organization, for inadmissibility under subsection 34(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?

Answer:

(a) section 7 of the Charter is not engaged in the determination to be made by the Immigration Division under paragraph 34(1)(f) of the Act;

(b) the Convention on the Rights of the Child does not apply when the proceedings and decision involving an individual take place when the individual is no longer a minor;

(c) an individual’s status as a minor is relevant and there may be a distinction between a minor and an adult in the determination of whether the individual is a member of a terrorist organization under paragraph 34(1)(f) of the Act if the minor provides evidence to support such a distinction; and

(d) in the present case, Mr. Poshteh’s age was properly considered by the Immigration Division and it was open to the Immigration Division to determine that he was a member of a terrorist organization for purposes of paragraph 34(1)(f) of the Act.

 

 

 

Appeal dismissed.

See answer below question.

 

IMM-3069-03

Campbell J.

March 18, 2004

2004 FC 415

 

Back to IRPA s. 96

 

A-217-04

Nadon J.A.

Sharlow J.A. (Reasons)

Malone J.A.

March 8, 2005

2005 FCA 91

 

In a case where a claimant has suffered persecution, is the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board required to apply the rebuttable presumption found in paragraph 45 of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status:

“that a person has well-founded fear of being persecuted if he has already been the victim of persecution for one of the reasons enumerated in the 1951 Convention”

or is this presumption not part of Canadian law?

Answer:

The second sentence of paragraph 45 of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status does not establish a presumption of law or a rebuttable presumption of law that must be applied in determining refugee claims under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. A person establishes a refugee claim by proving the existence of a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the reasons listed in section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Proof of past persecution for one of the listed reasons may support a finding of fact that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in the future, but it will not necessarily do so. If, for example, there is evidence that country conditions have changed since the persecution occurred, that evidence must be evaluated to determine whether the fear remains well founded.

 

 

Appeal dismissed.

See answer below question.

 

IMM-3194-02

Mackay J.

March 19, 2004

2004 FC 179

 

Back to IRPA s. 98

Back to IRPA s. 170(g)

Back to IRPA s. 170(h)

Back to RPDR s. 25

 

 

A-191-04

Richard C.J.

Sharlow J.A.

Malone J.A. (Reasons)

April 11, 2005

2005 FCA 125

 

1. (a) In a refugee exclusion case based on Article 1F(b) of international Convention on the Status of Refugees where the Minister relies upon interrogation statements produced abroad by foreign government agencies, must the Minister establish those statements were voluntary when made, particularly where there is some evidence of lack of voluntariness of one or more of the statements and evidence of torture sometimes used in obtaining statements from persons detained is included in information on general country conditions?

(b) Is the Minister required to give notice in advance of a hearing, of specific criminal acts alleged against the claimant, or is it sufficient if evidence at the subsequent hearing reveals specifics of criminal acts allegedly committed by the claimant?

(c) Is the Refugee Division required to state in its decision the specifics of criminal acts committed by the claimant?

 

2. Does the decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh v. M.C.I., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3, providing for separate assessment of a foreign state’s assurance to avoid torture of returned nationals, apply where there is some evidence of generalized resort to torture in the foreign state, or only where there is evidence reasonably indicating resort to torture in similar cases.

 

 

 

Appeal dismissed.

Answer:

1.

(a) No.

 

(b) No.

 

(c) No.

 

2. Not answered.

 

IMM-1145-03

Russell J.

March 25, 2004

2004 FC 446

Back to IRPA s. 35

 

 

 

 

Does a ministerial designation made under sub‑section 19(1)(l) of the former Immigration Act continue to be valid and applicable for the purposes of subsection 35(1)(b) of IRPA or is the Minister required to re‑designate under IRPA?

 

No appeal filed.

 

IMM-4181-03

Pinard J.

April 6, 2004

2004 FC 511

Back to IRPA s. 96

 

A-241-04

Décary J.A. (Reasons)

Létourneau J.A.

Nadon J.A.

April 12, 2005

2005 FCA 126

 

 

Does the expression “countries of nationality” of section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act include a country where the claimant can obtain citizenship if, in order to obtain it, he must first renounce the citizenship of another country and he is not prepared to do so?

 

 

Appeal allowed.

Answer: Yes.

 

IMM-4621-02

O’Reilly J.

April 13, 2004

2004 FC 349

Back to IRPA s. 37

 

A-229-04

Noël J.A.

Sexton J.A.

Evans J.A. (Reasons)

April 8, 2005

2005 FCA 122

 

 

In order to prove membership in a criminal organization under s. 37(l)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, is evidence of involvement in the organization's activities sufficient or must there be indicia of actual membership?

 

Appeal Allowed. Question not answered.

 

IMM-1076-03

Harrington J.

April 14, 2004

2004 FC 569

Back to IDR s. 5

 

A-287-04

Linden J.A.

Rothstein J.A. (Reasons)

Noël J.A.

November 4, 2004

2004 FCA 373

 

 

Does the Immigration Division have to consider the merits of the Minister’s case when considering whether to accept a withdrawal of a request for an admissibility hearing where no substantive evidence has been accepted in the proceeding?

 

Answer:

The Immigration Division should not consider the merits of the Minister’s case when considering whether to accept a withdrawal of a request for an admissibility hearing where no substantive evidence has been accepted in the proceeding.

 

Appeal allowed.

See answer below question.

 

IMM-656-03

IMM-661-03

Blanchard J.

June 17, 2004

2004 FC 872

Back to IRPA s. 97

 

A-363-04

Linden J.A. (Reasons)

Sexton J.A.

Evans J.A.

May 4, 2005

2005 FCA 160

 

 

Does section 97 of the IRPA require that a person establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he or she will face the danger or risks described in paragraphs 97(1)(a) or (b)?

 

Appeal dismissed.

Question not answered.

 

 

IMM-7369-03

Kelen J.

July 7, 2004

2004 FC 964

Back to IRPA s. 71

 

 

A-406-04

Noël J.A.

Sexton J.A.

Sharlow J.A.

June 15, 2005

 

 

Does section 71 of IRPA extinguish the common law continuing “equitable jurisdiction” of the IAD to reopen an appeal except where the IAD has failed to observe a principle of natural justice?

 

Dismissed as moot.

 

IMM-4964-03

Gibson J.

August 13, 2004

2004 FC 1120

Back to IRPA s. 45

 

A-549-04

Linden J.A.

Rothstein J.A. (Reasons)

Noël J.A.

May 27, 2005

2005 FCA 202

(a) Does the issuance of a deportation order pursuant to paragraph 45(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, against a permanent resident of Canada convicted of criminal offences and punished by a term of imprisonment of two years or more, and the removal scheme enacted under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”) for such a person as a whole, engage liberty interest and section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”)?

 

(b) If the answer to the first question is yes, does the statutory scheme enacted under the IRPA, including the removal provisions of paragraph 45(d), for the deportation of a permanent resident from Canada convicted of a criminal offence and punished by a sentence of two years or more, on the particular facts with this matter, comply with the requirements of section 7 of the Charter?

 

Answer:

(a) for purposes of this appeal, it is not necessary to decide whether removal from Canada engages the appellant’s liberty interest under section 7 of the Charter; and

 

(b) for purposes of this appeal and assuming without deciding that the appellant’s liberty interest is engaged, the scheme of the IRPA which may result in the removal of the appellant does not violate principles of fundamental justice.

 

 

Appeal dismissed.

See answers below questions.

 

IMM-5086-03

Mactavish J.

August 26, 2004

2004 FC 1174

Back to IRPA s. 34

 

 

 

 

Is a determination under sub‑section 34(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act a judicially reviewable decision if an application for Ministerial relief under sub‑section 34(2) is outstanding and no decision has been made on the application for landing?

 

 

No appeal filed.

 

IMM-8447-03

Kelen J.

September 20, 2004

2004 FC 1276

Back to IRPR s. 117

 

A-558-04

Evans J.A. (Reasons)

Desjardins J.A.,

Malone J.A.

December 20, 2005

2005 FCA 436

 

 

Is subsection 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations invalid or inoperative because it is unconstitutional as it deprives the applicant of her right to liberty and/or her right to security of person, in a manner not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, contrary to section 7 of the Charter?

 

 

 

Appeal dismissed.

Answer: No.

 

IMM-377-02

Layden-Stevenson J.

October 1, 2004

2004 FC 1356

Back to IRPA s. 35

 

 

A-539-04

Létourneau J.A.  (Reasons)

Rothstein J.A.

Malone J.A.

September 20, 2005

2005 FCA 303

 

 

Does the definition of “crime against humanity” found at subsection 6(3) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act include complicity therein?

 

 

Appeal dismissed.

Answer: Yes.

 

 

 

IMM-150-04

Harrington J.

October 12, 2004

Back to IRPA s. 96

 

A-592-04

Linden J.A.

Nadon J.A.

Sharlow J.A. (Reasons)

October 5, 2005

2005 FCA 322

 

 

In a country where military service is compulsory, and there is no alternative thereto, do repeated prosecutions and incarcerations of a conscientious objector for the offence of refusing to do his military service, constitute persecution based on a Convention refugee ground?

 

Appeal dismissed.

Answer: No

 

 

 

IMM-7941-03

Gibson J.

October 27, 2004

2004 FC 1511

Back to IRPA s. 48

 

 

A-627-04

Létourneau J.A.

Nadon J.A.

Pelletier J.A.

November 14, 2006

 

 

In the absence of evidence that the country of destination of an applicant will not be able to satisfactorily respond to the compelling individual circumstances of an applicant for deferral of removal, is the scope of obligation of the officer to whom an application for deferral of removal has been made, as adopted in the reasons for decision herein, appropriate in law?

 

Appeal dismissed following notice of status review

 

IMM-9593-03

Harrington J.

October 27, 2004

Back to IRPA s. 112

Back to IRPA s. 113

Back to IRPR s. 167

Back to Other

 

 

A‑626‑04

 

Must an immigration officer, who is conducting a pre-removal risk assessment, disclose documents which he or she has considered in relation to general country conditions which are not available at the Immigration Review Board Documentation Centre, but are publicly accessible in that they are available on the internet and give the applicant an opportunity to respond thereto, before reaching a decision?

 

 

 

 

Discontinued.

 

IMM-9934-03

Harrington J.

November 25, 2004

Back to IRPA s. 52

Back to IRPR s. 226

 

 

 

In the case where a claim for refugee status was rejected, but the claimant did not leave the country in the prescribed time, and the departure order became a deportation order,

a)    What criteria must an officer consider when determining whether a claimant should be authorized to return to Canada under section 52 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?

b)   Must the officer consider the reasons for the late departure?

c)    Must the officer ask the claimant to specifically explain the reason for the delayed departure?

d)   To what extent is the claimant’s history in Canada relevant?

 

 

No appeal filed.

 

 

IMM-2347-03

Lemieux J.

December 3, 2004

Back to IRPA s. 44

 

A‑688‑04

Décary J.A. (Reasons)

Noël J.A.

Pelletier J.A.

March 29, 2006

2006 FCA 126

 

 

1. What is the scope of the Minister’s Delegate’s discretion under subsection 44(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act when making a removal order?

2. What is the extent of participatory rights required when a Minister’s Delegate is making a decision pursuant to section 44(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act when making a removal order?

 

 

Appeal allowed. See Reasons for answer.

 

IMM-356-04

Gibson J.

December 17, 2004

Back to Other

 

A-16-05

Linden J.A.

Rothstein J.A.

Pelletier J.A. (Reasons)

December 9, 2005

2005 FCA 419

 

 

On the facts of this matter, did the Refugee Protection Division, when exercising its discretion to apply or not to apply issue estoppel, err in a reviewable manner by failing to expressly address in its reasons for decision the factors submitted by the parties before it as being relevant to the exercise of that discretion?

 

Appeal dismissed.

Certified question does not arise on the facts of this case.

 

 

 

IMM-472-04

Martineau J.

January 17, 2005

2005 FC 60

Back to IRPA s. 64

 

05-A-9

A‑126‑05

Nadon J.A.

Sexton J.A.

Sharlow J.A.(Reasons)

October 25, 2005

2005 FCA 347

 

a) Does the word “punished” used in ss. 64(2) of the IRPA with respect to a term of imprisonment refer to the sentence of imprisonment imposed or the actual time served in prison?

b) Does ss. 64(2) of the IRPA violate s. 7 of the Charter in a manner which cannot be justified under s. 1 of the Charter?

 

Answer:

a) With respect to the first certified question, we are all of the view that the word “punished” in subsection 64(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act refers to the sentence imposed, not the actual duration of incarceration.

b) We will not deal with the second certified question. (Question abandoned by appellant)

 

 

 

Appeal dismissed.

See answers below questions.

 

 

IMM-10482-03

Teitelbaum J.

February 9, 2005

Back to IRPR s. 9

 

A-64-05

Richard C.J.

Noël J.A. (Reasons)

Nadon J.A.

February 15, 2006

2006 FCA 68

 

 

What is the appropriate standard to apply for the judicial review of a decision of a visa officer in the matter of a study permit application: patent unreasonableness or reasonableness simpliciter?

 

 

Appeal dismissed.

Certified question not answered.

 

 

IMM-9571-03

Simpson J.

February 18, 2005

2005 FC 262

Back to IRPA s. 113

 

 

A-51-05

Décary J.A.

Létourneau J.A.

Noël J.A.

July 6, 2005

 

Does this case involve exceptional circumstances in which the balancing required by section 113 of the IRPA could justify deportation to torture?

 

 

 

Appeal allowed on motion by the Respondent

 

IMM-9332-03

O’Reilly J.

March 7, 2005

2005 FC 326

Back to IRPA s. 97

 

 

 

 

Does Section 97 of IRPA require that a person establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he or she will face the danger or risks described in paragraphs 97(1)(a) and (b)?

 

No appeal filed.

 

IMM-2124-04

Mosley J.

March 10, 2005

2005 FC 354

Back to IRPR s. 117

 

A-151-05

Rothstein J.A. (Reasons)

Linden J.A.

Pelletier J.A.

December 5, 2005

2005 FCA 406

 

 

Does paragraph 117(9)(d) of the IRP Regulations apply to exclude Convention refugees abroad, or Convention refugees seeking resettlement, as members of the family class by virtue of their relationship to a sponsor who previously became a permanent resident and at that time failed to declare them as non-accompanying family members?

 

Appeal dismissed. Answer: Yes.

 

 

 

IMM-3402-03

Lemieux J.

March 25, 2005

Back to Other

 

A-170-05

Décary J.A.

Sextom J.A.

Evans J.A. (Reasons)

January 12, 2006

2006 FCA 14

 

When an applicant comes to the Court without clean hands on an application for judicial review, should the Court in determining whether to consider the merits of the application, consider the consequences that might befall the applicant if the application is not considered on its merits?

 

Answer:

A consideration of the consequences of not determining the merits of an application for judicial review is within the Judge’s overall discretion with respect to the hearing of the application and the grant of relief.

 

 

Appeal allowed.

See answer below question.

 

 

 

IMM-6352-04

IMM-6353-04

IMM-7038-04

Snider J.

March 31, 2005

2005 FC 429

Back to IRPA s. 44

 

A-197-05

A-198-05

 

1. What is the scope of: (a) the immigration officer’s discretion under s. 44(1) of the IRPA in making a decision as to whether to prepare a report to the Minister (or, as in this case, the Minister’s delegate); and (b) of the discretion of the Minister’s delegate, under s. 44(2) of the Act, in making a decision as to whether to make a referral to the Immigration Division for an inquiry?

 

2. What is the duty of fairness owed in respect of: (a) the immigration officer’s decision on whether to prepare a report under s. 44(1) of the Act; and (b) the decision of the Minister’s delegate as to whether to refer such report to the Immigration Division under s. 44(2) of the Act?

 

 

Discontinued.

 

IMM-1868-04

Mosley J.

April 1st, 2005

2005 FC 437

Back to IRPA s. 95

Back to IRPA s. 112

Back to IRPA s. 115

 

 

A-203-05

 

1. What legal effect, if any, has a designation by the UNHCR as a “mandate refugee” on the determination of whether an individual is a protected person under sections 95, 112, and 115?

 

2. What legal effect, if any, does a successful application for permanent residence under the former Indochinese Designated Class Regulations have upon a determination of whether an individual is a protected person under sections 95, 112, and 115?

 

 

Discontinued.

 

 

IMM-1318-04

O’Reilly J.

April 5, 2005

2005 FC 445

Back to IRPA s. 45

 

A-208-05

 

1. Does the issuance of a deportation order pursuant to paragraph 45(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 against a permanent resident of Canada convicted of criminal offences and punished by a term of imprisonment of 2 years or more, and the removal scheme enacted under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for such a person as a whole, engage liberty interests in section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

 

2. If the answer to the first question is yes, does the statutory scheme enacted under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, including the removal provision of paragraph 45(d), for the deportation of a permanent resident from Canada convicted of a criminal offence and punished by a sentence of two years or more, on the particular facts of this matter, comply with the requirements of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, fundamental justice?

 

 

Discontinued.

 

IMM-735-04

Rouleau J.

April 7, 2005

Back to IRPA s. 197

 

 

A-210-05

Sexton J.A. (Reasons)

Linden J.A.

Noël J.A.

December 9, 2005

2005 FCA 417

 

What is the appropriate interpretation of the time of breach, as regards s. 197 of the IRPA: - the time of conviction, or the time of commission of the offence and how can s. 197 be applied retroactively / retrospectively for a situation where an offence occurred prior to June 28th, 2002, but the conviction occurred after the coming into force of the IRPA, and be reconciled with the whole of the Act?

 

Answer:

The appropriate interpretation of the time of breach, as regards section 197 of the IRPA, is the time of the offence.  Section 197 is retrospectively applicable to a case in which an offence occurred prior to June 28, 2002, but the conviction occurred after the coming into force of the IRPA.  The wording of the section, particularly when it is read in the context of its companion transitional provisions in the IRPA, reveals that Parliament intended section 197 to have retrospective effects.  Even if the legislature’s intention on this point were not clear, the presumption against retrospectivity does not apply to section 197 because that provision is designed to protect the public.

 

 

Appeal dismissed. See answer below question.

 

IMM-8863-04

Mactavish J.

April 12, 2005

2005 FC 479

Back to IRPA s. 72

Back to Other

 

A-169-05

Létourneau J.A.

Rothstein J.A. (Reasons)

Malone J.A.

September 28, 2005

2005 FCA 308

 

1. Is a desire to seek certification of a class action a relevant consideration on a motion, pursuant to section 18.4(2) of the Federal Courts Act, to convert an application for judicial review into an action? and

2. If so, what is the test for conversion in the circumstances? Does it include consideration of the factors listed in Rule 299.18, which sets out the test for certification of a class action?

 

Answer:

1. A desire to seek certification of a class action is a relevant consideration on a motion to convert a judicial review into an action under subsection 18.4(2). However, such desire is not sufficient to justify conversion.

2. The matters relevant for consideration on an application for conversion for the purpose of certifying a class action include those in rule 299.18. As a practical matter, the applications for conversion and certification should be heard and considered together unless a party can demonstrate prejudice in doing so. Then, where the applications for conversion and certification are considered together, if the test for certification is satisfied, a conversion order should be made and it should immediately be followed by an order certifying the class action.

 

 

 

Appeal allowed. See answer below question.

 

IMM-3111-04

Pinard J.

May 6, 2005

2005 FC 615

Back to IRPA s. 64

 

 

A-254-05

Décary J.A. (Reasons)

Sexton J.A.

Evans J.A.

December 13, 2005

2005 FCA 426

 

 

Did the Immigration Appeal Division err in law in determining that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s appeal of the deportation order?

 

Appeal dismissed.

Answer: No

 

 

 

IMM-3758-04

Snider J.

May 12, 2005

2005 FC 663

Back to IRPA s. 21

Back to IRPR s. 10

Back to IRPR s. 175

Back to IRPR s. 176

 

 

A-280-05

 

Can a protected person’s application for permanent residence in Canada be amended to include family members more than 180 days after being determined to be a protected person under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?

 

Appeal dismissed for delay.

 

IMM-9071-04

Gibson J.

May 27, 2005

2005 FC 759

Back to IRPA s. 72

Back to IRPA s. 112

Back to Other

 

 

 

Is an application for judicial review of a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment moot where the individual who is subject of the decision has been removed from or has left Canada after an application for stay of removal has been rejected on the grounds that the Applicant has failed to establish that such removal would subject him to irreparable harm and, further, if it is moot, is it open to the Trial Court to decline to exercise its discretion to hear the application for judicial review, notwithstanding its mootness?

 

 

No appeal filed.


 

IMM-1963-04

Gibson J.

May 27, 2005

2005 FC 756

Back to IRPA s. 72

Back to IRPA s. 112

Back to Other

 

 

 

Is an application for judicial review of a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment moot where the individual who is subject of the decision has been removed from or has left Canada after an application for stay of removal has been rejected on the grounds that the Applicant has failed to establish that such removal would subject him to irreparable harm and, further, if it is moot, is it open to the Trial Court to decline to exercise its discretion to hear the application for judicial review, notwithstanding its mootness?

 

 

No appeal filed.

 

IMM-5154-04

Mactavish J.

May 27, 2005

2005 FC 757

Back to IRPA s. 64

 

 

 

1. Does pre-sentence custody, which is expressly credited towards a person’s criminal sentence, form part of the “term of imprisonment” under section 64(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act? and

2. Does the word “punished” used in subsection 64(2) of IRPA with respect to a term of imprisonment refer to the actual time served in prison after sentencing?

 

 

No appeal filed.

 

IMM-2228-04

Gibson J.

May 30, 2005

2005 FC 739

Back to IRPA s. 112

 

A-296-05

Décary J.A.

Sextom J.A.

Evans J.A. (Reasons)

December 12, 2005

2005 FCA 422

 

 

Did the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Unit, under the Canada Border Services Agency, possess the requisite degree of institutional independence such that natural justice and fundamental justice were respected?

 

 

 

Appeal dismissed. Answer: Yes.

 

 

 

 

IMM-3377-04

Lutfy C.J.

June 13, 2005

2005 FC 834

Back to IRPA s. 115

 

A-390-05

Evans J.A (Reasons)

Nadon J.A.

Sexton J.A.

April 26, 2006

2006 FCA 151

 

Does the opinion that a “protected person” (“the person”) constitutes a danger to the public in Canada, as contemplated by paragraph 115(2)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, require a preliminary determination by the Minister’s delegate concerning the person’s criminality, supported by a clear, distinct and separate rationale: (a) without regard to any of the risk factors which the person may face if returned to the country from which refuge was sought; and (b) independently from any consideration and balancing of the competing interests, as may be required by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 1, concerning the person’s presence in Canada and the injustice that could be caused to the individual upon deportation?

 

Answer:

Paragraph 115(2)(a) of the IRPA requires the Minister’s delegate to form an opinion on whether a protected person is “a danger to the public” without having regard to the risk of persecution, or other humanitarian or compassionate circumstances, and to provide an adequate explanation of the bases for that opinion.

 

 

Appeal allowed. See answer below question.

 

IMM-1737-04

Heneghan J.

June 15, 2005

2005 FC 855

Back to IRPR s. 117

 

 

 

1. Are stepparents included in the family class and, in particular, does the word “mother” in paragraph 117(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations include a stepmother?

2. Does the word “parent” in French include “stepparent”?

 

No appeal filed.

 

IMM-9283-04

Tremblay-Lamer J.

June 16, 2005

2005 FC 852

Back to IRPR s. 160

 

 

 

Is the PRRA officer required to send the notice under section 160 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations before the departure order becomes a deportation order, thereby putting the foreign national in an irregular situation?

Should the answer to the preceding question be positive, should the deportation order be set aside?

 

 

No appeal filed.

 

IMM-6961-03

Lemieux J.

July 7, 2005

2005 FC 950

Back to IRPA s. 197

 

 

A-570-05

Linden J.A.

Noël J.A.

Evans J.A. (Reasons)

November 20, 2006

2006 FCA 379

 

 

Is the interpretation of section 197 of the IRPA contained in these reasons on the facts of this case correct?

 

Appeal allowed. Answer: No

 

IMM-10475-04

Campbell J.

July 27, 2005

2005 FC 1037

Back to IRPA s. 40

 

 

 

Does s. 40(1)(c) of the IRPA require the person concerned to make a misrepresentation in the course of the vacation hearing before the Refugee Protection Division?

 

No appeal filed.

 

IMM-318-05

Gibson J.

July 28, 2005

2005 FC 1039

Back to IRPA s. 11

Back to IRPR s. 117

 

 

A-481-05

 

Should IRP Regulation 117(9)(d) and, in particular, the phrase “at the time of that application” be interpreted to refer to an application for a permanent resident visa pursuant to section 11 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or does it extend to the granting of permanent resident status?

 

Discontinued.

 

IMM-5815-04

O’Keefe J.

August 3, 2005

2005 FC 1059

Back to IRPA s. 40

 

 

A-420-05

Noël J.A.

Evans J.A. (Reasons)

Malone J.A.

October 24, 2006

2006 FCA 345

 

Under s. 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which reads:

A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation

(a) for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act…

is a permanent resident inadmissible for indirectly misrepresenting a material fact if they are landed as the dependent of a principal applicant who misrepresented material facts on his application for landing?

 

 

Appeal dismissed. Question not answered.

 

IMM-1760-04

O’Keefe J.

August 3, 2005

2005 FC 1063

Back to IRPR s. 117

 

 

 

Is subsection 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations invalid or inoperative because it is unconstitutional as it deprives the applicant of her right to liberty and/or her right to security of person, in a manner not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, contrary to section 7 of the Charter?

 

No appeal filed.

 

IMM-8656-04

Phelan J.

August 9, 2005

2005 FC 1077

Back to IRPA s. 34

 

 

1.                     

1. For purposes of paragraph 34(1)(b) of IRPA, does the phrase “subversion by force” mean actual use of physical compulsion or does it also include the threat or reasonable possibility of physical compulsion?

2. Does paragraph 34(1)(b) of IRPA require the permanent resident or foreign national to have an actual intention to use force in the subversion of any government?

 

 

No appeal filed.

 

IMM-9107-04

Dawson J.

August 23, 2005

2005 FC 1147

Back to IRPA s. 50

 

A-416-05

Linden J.A. (Reasons)

Evans J.A.

Malone J.A.

November 28, 2006

2006 FCA 386

 

In the circumstances of this case, where:

1. A parent is a foreign national who is subject to a valid removal order;

2. A family court issues an order, granting custody to the parent of his or her Canadian born child and prohibiting the removal of the child from the province; and

3. The Minister is given the opportunity to make submissions before the family court before the order is pronounced;

Would the family court order be directly contravened, within the contemplation of subsection 50(a) of the Act, if the parent, but not the child, is removed from Canada?

 

 

Appeal dismissed. Question not answered.

 

IMM-78-05

Harrington J.

August 31, 2005

Back to IRPA s. 190

Back to IRPR s. 117

 

 

 

A-446-05

Noël J.A. (Reasons)

Sharlow J.A.

Malone J.A.

May 18, 2006

2006 FCA 186

 

1. Can the doctrine of legitimate expectations be relied on to avoid the application of section 190 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27?

2. Does the phrase “at the time of that application” in paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, contemplate the time at which the application for permanent residence was made?

 

Answers:

1. No.

2. The phrase “at the time of that application” in paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Regulations contemplates the life of the application from the time when it is initiated by the filing of the authorized form to the time when permanent resident status is granted at a port of entry.

 

 

Appeal allowed.

See answers below questions.

 

IMM-6045-04

Mosley J.

September 1, 2005

2005 FC 1193

Back to IRPA s. 97

 

 

A-418-05

Linden J.A. (Reasons)

Nadon J.A.

Malone J.A.

November 10, 2006

2006 FCA 365

 

 

Does the exclusion of a risk to life caused by the inability of a country to provide adequate medical care to a person suffering life-threatening illness under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act infringe the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in a manner that does not accord with the principles of fundamental justice, and which cannot be justified under section 1 of the Charter?

 

Appeal dismissed. Question not answered.

 

IMM-8912-04

Hughes J.

September 6, 2005

2005 FC 1211

Back to IRPA s. 37

 

A-473-05

Linden J.A. (Reasons)

Nadon J.A.

Sexton J.A.

October 12, 2006

2006 FCA 326

 

a) Do the words “being a member of an organization” in paragraph 37(1)(a) of the IRPA include a person who was not a member at the time of reporting but was a member before that time?

b) What constitutes an “organization” within the meaning of paragraph 37(1)(a) of the IRPA, and does the A.K. Kannan gang fit within that meaning?

 

Answers:

a) The phrase “being a member of an organization” in paragraph 37(1)(a) of the IRPA includes a person who was not a member at the time of the reporting, but was a member before that time.

b) The word “organization”, as it is used in paragraph 37(1)(a) of the IRPA, is to be given a broad and unrestricted interpretation. While no precise definition can be established here, the factors listed by O’Reilly J. in Thanaratnam, supra, by the Board member, and possibly others, are helpful when making a determination, but no one of them is an essential element. The structure of criminal organizations is varied, and the Board must be given flexibility to evaluate all of the evidence in the light of the legislative purpose of IRPA to prioritize security in deciding whether a group is an organization for the purpose of paragraph 37(1)(a). The A.K. Kannan gang, as found by the Board and the Judge, fits within this meaning.

 

 

Appeal dismissed.

See answers below questions.

 

IMM-3634-04

Simpson J.

September 7, 2005

2005 FC 1212

Back to IRPA s. 67

Back to IRPA s. 115

 

 

A-464-05

Linden J.A. (Reasons)

Nadon J.A.

Malone J.A.

October 19, 2006

2006 FCA 340

 

 

Is a Deportation Order, with respect to a permanent resident who has been declared to be a convention refugee, which specifies as sole country of citizenship the country which he fled as a refugee, sufficient without more to establish that country as the likely country of removal so that Chieu applies and the IAD is required to consider hardship to the Applicant in that country on an appeal from a Deportation Order?

 

Appeal dismissed.

Answer: No.

 

 

 

 

IMM-88-05

Snider J.

September 8, 2005

2005 FC 1224

Back to IRPA s. 16

Back to IRPA s. 33

Back to IRPA s. 34

Back to IRPA s. 35

Back to IRPA s. 36

Back to IRPA s. 37

Back to IRPA s. 38

Back to IRPA s. 39

Back to IRPA s. 40

Back to IRPA s. 41

Back to IRPA s. 42

Back to IRPA s. 43

 

 

 

 

a) Is s. 16(1) of IRPA applicable to an applicant applying for a visa to come to Canada?

 

b) Does a visa officer have jurisdiction to refuse an investor applicant on grounds that he has failed to meet the requirements of IRPA and not on grounds that he found to be inadmissible as per the classes of inadmissible persons under section 32 to 43 of IRPA?

 

 

 

No appeal filed.

 

IMM-3635-04

Phelan J.

September 14, 2005

2005 FC 1209

Back to IRPR s. 117

 

A-550-05

Richard C.J.

Sharlow J.A. (Reasons)

Pelletier J.A.

September 14, 2006

2006 FCA 303

 

 

Does the phrase “at the time of that application” in paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 mean at the time at which the sponsor’s application for a permanent resident visa was submitted?

Answer:

The phrase “at the time of that application” in paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Regulations contemplates the life of the application from the time when it is initiated by filing the authorized form to the time when permanent resident status is granted at a port of entry.

 

 

Appeal allowed.

See answers below questions.

 

IMM-9744-04

Pinard J.

September 16, 2005

2005 FC 1255

Back to IRPR s. 117

 

 

A-495-05

 

In interpreting paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, should the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board have considered that the respondent, when she sought to enter Canada, had the obligation to declare the birth of her daughter to the immigration authorities, even if her daughter's birth took place after the respondent had filled out her original forms with the visa office at the Canadian Embassy in Haiti?

 

 

Discontinued.

 

 

IMM-8736-04

Hughes J.

September 19, 2005

2005 FC 1280

Back to IRPA s. 112

Back to IRPA s. 113

 

 

A-486-05

Linden J.A.

Evans J.A. (Reasons)

Malone J.A.

December 1, 2006

2006 FCA 394

 <