Parliament can impose conditions on permanent resident’s right to remain in Canada

Immigration and Citizenship - Constitutional Issues - Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Immigration Division (ID) issued decision that applicant was inadmissible to Canada on grounds of serious criminality and organized criminality under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act . Applicant challenged provisions of Act that provided for deportation of long-term permanent residents on basis of serious or organized criminality as violating ss. 7 and/or 12 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . Applicant contended that serious consequences of his deportation, namely, being uprooted from his family and life and Canada and being removed to U.K. where he had no ties, were grossly disproportionate to objective of deporting him . Applicant unsuccessfully brought application for judicial review of ID's decision . Applicant appealed. Appeal dismissed. Judge did not err in dismissing s. 7 arguments as being premature and in finding that inadmissibility determination did not engage s. 7. Section 7 of Charter could not be interpreted as requiring that assessment of person’s right be made at every step of process. Jurisprudence in immigration context was clear: section 7 rights were considered at removal or pre-removal detention stage. Parliament can impose conditions on permanent resident’s right to remain in Canada, and can legitimately remove permanent resident if they deliberately violated essential condition under which they were permitted to enter and remain in Canada. Admissibility hearing before ID was clearly not last step in that complex process and every person, including applicant, was provided with opportunity to have their Charter rights fully assessed before being removed from Canada.

Revell v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (2019), 2019 CarswellNat 5584, 2019 FCA 262, David Stratas J.A., D.G. Near J.A., and Yves de Montigny J.A. (F.C.A.); affirmed (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 5515, 2017 CarswellNat 6318, 2017 FC 905, 2017 CF 905, Catherine M. Kane J. (F.C.).

Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca

Free newsletter

Our newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please enter your email address below to subscribe.

Recent articles & video

Ontario superior court awards accident victim $1 million despite defence claims she was malingering

Common law reasonable notice still longer than extended mass termination notice: employment lawyer

Jessica Reekie appointed as new executive director of Community Legal Education Ontario

Ontario Superior Court approves settlement for a child hit by a car while crossing the road

Federation of Ontario Law Associations and FullStop slate trade barbs over law library funding

OCA finds force majeure clause allows for rent-free lease extension over COVID-19 lockdown period

Most Read Articles

Changes to personal injury law rules mean firms must be strategic: innovation forum webinar panel

OCA finds force majeure clause allows for rent-free lease extension over COVID-19 lockdown period

Federation of Ontario Law Associations and FullStop slate trade barbs over law library funding

Ont. Superior Court finds plaintiff's costs in medical malpractice case unreasonable and excessive