Federal Court


Finding of inadmissibility precluded appeal, not deportation order

This was application for judicial review of IAD’s decision holding it did not have jurisdiction to hear applicant’s appeal. Applicant was citizen of Sri Lanka and Tamil. He arrived in Canada in 1994 and was found to be Convention Refugee in 1995. He became permanent resident in 1997. Between 1999 and 2001 applicant was convicted of assault, failure to comply with recognizance and mischief. Applicant was subsequently found to be inadmissible for organized crime under paragraph 37(1)(a) of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Can.), because of his membership in gang and deportation order was issued. Respondent Minister issued danger opinion under s. 115(2)(b) of Act. Applicant successfully applied for judicial review of danger opinion and removal order. Report was issued stating that applicant was inadmissible under s. 36(2)(a) of Act for reasons of criminality. New deportation order was issued. Applicant sought to appeal deportation order. IAD determined it did not have jurisdiction under s. 64(1) to hear appeal because applicant had been found inadmissible on grounds of organized criminality. Application dismissed. Standard of review was correctness. It was not earlier deportation order that operated to deprive applicant of appeal of new deportation order but it was finding of inadmissibility. Section 64(1) of Act did not preclude individual from appealing to IAD because deportation order was issued but stated that no applicant found inadmissible on grounds of organized criminality could appeal to IAD. Finding of inadmissibility precluded appeal to IAD, not existence of deportation order. IAD was correct to find it did not have jurisdiction to hear appeal.

Nagalingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (Dec. 3, 2012, F.C., Boivin J., File No. IMM-2411-12) 222 A.C.W.S. (3d) 770.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?