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

More civil liability for privacy complaints in Ontario after landmark case

Privacy Commissioner could overhaul artificial intelligence laws amid mounting privacy concerns

Cynthia Koo to research cybermisogyny for women's rights org

Windsor Law expands class action clinic to meet growing demand

Human rights monitoring falls in the law society's mandate, says founding member of group

Condo board capacity still unsettled after decision on notice and nullity

Most Read Articles

Human rights monitoring falls in the law society's mandate, says founding member of group

Juror's alleged letter praising Crown's appearance does not amount to bias, appeal judges say

Condo board capacity still unsettled after decision on notice and nullity

CBA president Vivene Salmon honoured as 2020 Woman of Influence