Federal Court


Lack of disclosure could not be viewed as innocent or inadvertent

Application for judicial review of decision applicants inadmissible as result of misrepresentation. Family members sponsored applicants, father, mother and daughter, citizens of Philippines, for permanent resident status in Canada. Daughter had no children at time application documents originally submitted in 2008, but gave birth to two children prior to issuance of permanent residence visa in October 2010. Daughter disclosed birth of first child in medical form submitted in early 2010, but never disclosed birth of second child and never reported change in family status in application documents. When applicants arrived in Canada in January 2011, immigration authorities reported applicants had directly or indirectly misrepresented or withheld material information by failing to disclose existence of two minor children. Immigration and Refugee Board noted daughter’s failure to disclose children closed off avenue of investigation that may or may not have affected application. Board found father and mother complicit and declared all three inadmissible pursuant to s. 40 of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Can.). Application dismissed. Assessment of misrepresentation under s. 40 involved questions of mixed fact and law reviewable on standard of reasonableness. Applicants had duty to be forthright in dealings with immigration authorities. Nothing unreasonable in board’s conclusion lack of disclosure could not be viewed as innocent or inadvertent. Disclosure upon arrival in Canada not sufficient. Not like cases in which change in family status reported prior to issuance of visa.

Gatue v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

(June 12, 2012, F.C., Boivin J., File No. IMM-6326-11) 218 A.C.W.S. (3d) 162 (16 pp.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

A Law Society of Ontario tribunal has ruled that a lawyer charged with offences related to child pornography should not be subject to an interlocutory suspension. Do you agree with this decision?