Federal Court


Security posted by parents was not ‘guarantee’

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness applied for judicial review of decision of Immigration Division of Immigration and Refugee Board. Board ordered that respondent be released from detention on terms and conditions pending outcome of his admissibility hearing under s. 44 of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Can.). Respondent was American citizen and claimed he was drugged, subjected to psychological torture and questioned by FBI agents on national security matters when he crossed into Canada. Respondent claimed refugee protection. Refugee claim was suspended pending admissibility hearing and respondent was detained. At respondent’s sixth detention review hearing he was released subject to conditions. Respondent’s parents were to post $10,000 cash deposit, and respondent was to be subject of GPS monitoring during his release. Respondent was not to leave parent’s residence unaccompanied and was not to have access to internet. Minister claimed parents were not adequate bondspersons. Application dismissed. Security posted by parents was not “guarantee”. They posted cash. Board took into account possibility of lengthy detention of respondent pending his admissibility hearing and decided to release him from detention. That decision was reasonable in circumstances. Use of GPS monitoring as condition of respondent’s release was reasonable.

Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Dehart (Sep. 5, 2013, F.C., E. Heneghan J., File No. IMM-5277-13) 232 A.C.W.S. (3d) 762.

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?