Federal Court


Citizen tried to use fake passport to aid his sister in entering Canada illegally

Canadian citizen originally from Sri Lanka was employed as flight attendant. Citizen’s sister in Sri Lanka called citizen saying that she was running from police there and needed his help. Citizen flew to Malaysia where he learned sister had fake Canadian passport. Citizen met sister in Laos and flew with her to Tokyo. When sister attempted to get boarding pass in Tokyo to fly to Canada, ticket agent reported suspicious passport to officials and passport was confirmed to be fake. Sister was deported from Japan to Sri Lanka. Director of Investigations Division Passport Integrity Branch found that citizen committed indictable offence outside of Canada by facilitating or aiding entry of his sister without proper documentation. Director revoked citizen’s passport for three year period pursuant to s. 10(2)(b) of Canadian Passport Order. Director did not identify exact section number in reasons but did state what offence was and facts used when Director found citizen had committed offence. Citizen applied for judicial review, contending that decision was not reasonable as reasons were vague and specific offence that he was found to have committed was not identified by section number in reasons and as result until judicial review he did not know exact offence that he was found to have committed. Application dismissed. There was no breach of principles of natural justice as citizen was given opportunity to respond to all facts gathered in investigation, and he did respond. Director considered citizen’s submissions before decision was made. There was no disagreement citizen tried to use fake passport to aid his sister in entering Canada illegally. It would have been preferable if actual number of section had been used by Director but it was not fatal in this case.

De Hoedt v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (Aug. 29, 2014, F.C., Glennys L. McVeigh J., File No. T-1859-13) 245 A.C.W.S. (3d) 911.

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?