Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Cha

Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Cha
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2006-03-29
Neutral citation
2006 FCA 126
File numbers
A-688-04
Notes
Reported Decision
Decision Content
Date: 20060329
Docket: A-688-04
Citation: 2006 FCA 126
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Appellant
and
JUNG WOO CHA
Respondent
Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on March 2, 2006.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 29, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DÉCARY J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
Date: 20060329
Docket: A-688-04
Citation: 2006 FCA 126
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Appellant
and
JUNG WOO CHA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DÉCARY J.A.
[1] This is an appeal from a decision of Lemieux J. (2004 F.C. 1507) quashing the Minister’s delegate’s decision to issue a deportation order against the respondent. The following questions were certified:
1) What is the scope of the Minister’s Delegate’s discretion under subsection 44(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act when making a removal order?
2) What is the extent of participatory rights required when a Minister’s Delegate is making a decision pursuant to section 44(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act when making a removal order?
[2] At the hearing, counsel for the appellant sought leave to amend the style of cause in order to replace the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. The amendment was granted, as the administration of the relevant provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the Act) (S.C. 2001, c.27) was transferred from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness pursuant to the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act (R.S. 1985, c.34) and Orders in Council P.C. 2003-2061, 2003-2063 and 2005-0482.
[3] The respondent was represented by counsel in the Federal Court. In this Court his counsel did not file a memorandum of fact and law and he did not appear at the hearing. The respondent was not present either, having left Canada in July 2003 in execution of the deportation order at issue in this appeal.
The facts
[4] The respondent is a foreign national from South Korea who entered Canada in 1996 with a student authorization. He had been on renewed student authorizations ever since his entry. During his seven-year stay in Canada, he never completed any course or program in which he was enrolled as a student. In 2001, he was convicted in Ottawa of driving a vehicle while having a concentration of alcohol in excess of 80 milligrams per 100 milliliters of blood contrary to paragraph 253(b) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. This offence is punishable by indictment and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years.
[5] In March 2003, the respondent was asked by telephone to meet with an immigration officer, Mr. Yelle, to discuss his criminal conviction. He met Mr. Yelle on March 17, 2003, at 9:05 a.m. and was asked to provide information about his criminal conviction, the reasons behind his failure to finish any course or program and his financial support in Canada. He was also asked if he had fears of returning to South Korea. His answers, as noted by Mr. Yelle in the file, were as follows:
I asked him why had he not completed any courses whatsoever since he was in Canada? He replied that his grades were not good enough and that he changed subject courses. I then asked him how could he have been in Canada for over six years and not have anything to show for? He replied “I don’t know, I guess I’ve been lazy”.
I then asked what else has he been doing here in Canada for the past six years? He replied that he would stay home on his free time.
Mr. Cha stated that his parents financially support him. They pay his rent of $960.00 a month. Mr. Cha states that he has approximately $3000.00CAD in his bank account and that he doesn’t work.
Mr.Cha states that he has no family in Canada and that is family are all in Korea.
Mr. Cha stated that he had no outstanding charges or convictions in Canada or Korea.
I asked Mr. Cha if he had any fears of returning to Korea? He replied “YES” I asked why and he replied that he wanted to finish school and return to Korea and find a job.
I questioned him about his criminal conviction. He stated that he pleaded not guilty because of a technicality. He was later convicted.
(Appeal Book p.41.).
[6] The interview concluded at 9:30 a.m.
[7] Immediately following the interview, Mr. Yelle made a report under subsection 44(1) of the Act, finding the respondent to be inadmissible solely on the ground of criminality as described in paragraph 36 (2)(a) of the Act (Appeal Book p. 22). A copy of the report was given to the respondent.
[8] A few minutes later, the respondent met with the Minister’s delegate, Ms. Perreault, to discuss the report. The completed Suggested Proceeding Script of the interview, which started at 9:50 a.m. and concluded at 10:30 a.m., reads as follows:
My name is LP, and I am an Immigration officer. I have been presented with a report written under subsection 44(1) of the Immigration and Refugee protection Act concerning Jung Woo Cha. Are you Jung Woo Cha? Yes.
LP. The purpose of this interview is for me to determine whether this report is well founded. If I determine that it is not, you will be allowed to remain in Canada under the status you currently enjoy. If, however, I find that the report is well founded, I am required by subsection 44(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to issue a removal order against you. This order would require you to leave Canada immediately or as soon as reasonably practicable. Do you understand? Yes.
LP. The type of removal order that I would issue to you is a Deport. order, in accordance with paragraph 228 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. Do you understand? Yes. LP. (proceed to explain the effect and consequences of the removal order in question, and then ask the person concerned if he/she understands). Done
Here is a copy of the report made against you. It alleges that you are inadmissible to Canada under S.36(2)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act because Conv. In CDA DWI (read from report) Do you understand? Yes.
LP. I will begin by asking you some questions concerning the allegations contained in the report. Then, I will consider any evidence the reporting officer has submitted in the support of the report. Thereafter, I will give you an opportunity to present evidence and/or make any explanations concerning the report. Do you understand? Yes.
LP.(conduct your questioning of the person concerned, in relation to the allegations in questions. Start by confirming the person’s full and complete name, date of birth, place of birth, country of citizenship, then tailor your questions to the allegations in question. Once you are done, examine any evidence that was submitted in support of the report. Allow the person concerned to view this evidence. Then, give the person concerned the opportunity to present any evidence and/or make any explanations. Record your questions, and the answers provided to them, below. Use an extra sheet of paper if necessary).
Read over report with PC confirmed info. No evidence provided.
I will now give you my decision on the report. After considering the evidence in support of the report, your answers to my questions, and the explanations that you have given, I have decided that the report is well founded. I am satisfied that you are described as set out in the report, I therefore issue this Dep. Order. Do you understand? Yes.
As previously explained to you, as a consequence of this decision you will have to leave CDA forthwith. Do you understand? Yes.
LP. (if a removal order is issued, prepare the order and serve it on the person concerned. Go over it, and have the person concerned sign it, and give him/her a copy of it. Then advise the person concerned about their right to make an application to the Federal Court, if he/she wishes, within 15 days. Finally, inform the person of the opportunity to apply for PRRA, and have them confirm their intention in writing, on the appropriate letter).
Remarks (if any):
Unable to satisfy M.D. that he should remain in CDA. Does not appear to be serious about his studies. Has been in CDA 6 years no degree. Moves around no H and C’s.
LPerreault.
(Appeal Book p. 54-56.)
[9] The Minister’s delegate, the same day, issued the deportation order (Appeal Book p.11). The order contains a signed statement by the respondent that he understood the decision and its consequences.
[10] A judicial review of the Minister’s delegate’s decision was conducted by Lemieux J., who quashed the deportation order. The appellant takes issue, principally, with paragraphs 59 to 62 of the reasons for judgment, which refer to the scope of discretion under subsection 44(2) of the Act, and paragraphs 66 to 68, which deal with the participatory rights of a foreign national against whom a deportation order is made:
[59] In my view, therefore, the Minister’s delegate had an obligation to consider the particular circumstances of the applicant and his conviction to determine if there were any mitigating circumstances which would make it unreasonable to deport him.
[60] I agree with the suggestion made in some quarters that the discretion is to be used in cases where a foreign national has committed a minor violation which technically qualified as a indictable offence and in respect of which the automatic issuance of a deportation order would not further the public interest.
[61] Such a perspective would suggest that the scope of discretion under section 44(2) of the Act may be limited and should not be regarded as a substitute for the exercise of the Minister’s humanitarian and compassionate jurisdiction under section 25 of the Act although there may be common considerations which may be covered by ministerial guidelines.
[62] On the record before me, it certainly seems both the Minister’s delegate and the immigration officer thought they had a discretion and could and did consider H&C factors.
…..
[66] Taking into account, in the particular circumstances of this case, which does not engage a point of entry exclusion, I feel a relatively high degree of participatory rights is warranted at the final stage which is the making of a deportation order by the Minister’s delegate.
[67] The factors militating in favour of a relatively strong level of procedural fairness when deportation orders are issued by the Minister’s delegate are:
(1) The finality of the determination made by the Minister’s delegate with no right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division, subject to the Federal Court leave and judicial review process;
(2) The severe consequences of deportation on the individual in the applicant’s circumstances including the ending of his studies without obtaining a diploma and lifetime exclusion from Canada unless the Minister consents to his return and the lack of discretion in the Minister’s delegate to make a deportation order.
[68] In this case, I consider the applicant was owed the following participatory rights, most of which were breached:
(1) An interview with the Minister’s delegate which was granted;
(2) Notice that the process he was called in for could lead to a deportation order. That right was breached. He knew the immigration officer wanted to examine him about his conviction but he had no idea what that meant. He was only told about the deportation order during his interview with the Minister’s delegate and I infer from the interview process he did not know what consequences could befall him if subject to a deportation order because the consequences were not explained to him.
(3) Notice that he had the right to have legal counsel present during the interview. This right was denied;
(4) A reasonable opportunity to present evidence. The manner the interview process was conducted leads me to conclude he had no such real opportunity because he did not know the case he had to meet including his ability to advance mitigating factors.
[11] Hence the certification of the questions referred to at the beginning of these reasons.
[12] The decision at issue is the one made by Ms. Perreault, the Minister’s delegate, pursuant to subsection 44(2) of the Act. While the subsection gives the Minister himself the power to decide, the latter, pursuant to subsection 6(2) of the Act, is allowed to delegate his power and indeed delegated it to the person commonly called “the Minister’s delegate”. In contrast, the immigration officer who prepared the subsection 44(1) report, Mr. Yelle, is designated pursuant to subsection 6(1). The importance of this distinction will appear later.
[13] This appeal deals with foreign nationals in respect of whom an inadmissibility report was prepared by an immigration officer on the sole ground of criminality in Canada and in respect of whom the Minister’s delegate issued a deportation order. The appeal does not deal with permanent residents. Nor does it deal with other grounds of inadmissibility or with the referral of the report to the Immigration Division. I am not purporting to rule on any situation other than the very specific one at issue. I will, occasionally, refer in the course of the reasons to cases in the Federal Court that involved permanent residents inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality in Canada (Correia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] F.C. 782; Leong v. Canada (Solicitor General), [2004] F.C. 1126; Hernandez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), [2005] F.C. 429 and Kim v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.C. 437. Yet, I do not wish to be taken as approving or disapproving the final determination that was made in these cases.
[14] I have consulted the debates in the House of Commons and the testimony in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration that preceded, in 2001, the adoption of the Act. I have examined, also, the Department Procedures Manual (The Manual) published by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (C.I.C.), in particular chapter 1, ENF, “Inadmissibility”, chapter 2, ENF 2, “Evaluating Inadmissibility’, chapter 5, ENF 5, “Writing Section 44(1) Reports”, chapter 6, ENF 6, “Review of Reports under A 44(1)” and chapter 14, ENF 14/0P19, “Criminal rehabilitation”. The Manual is available on the web site of C.I.C. and updated regularly.
[15] It is trite law that these debates, testimony and governmental guidelines are not binding on government institutions and even less so on the courts, but it is accepted that they can offer useful insight on the background, purpose and meaning of the legislation. (Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 F.C.A. 270, at paragraph 37; Hernandez at paragraphs 34 and 35.
Relevant statutory provisions
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
2001, c. 27
[Assented to November 1, 2001]
…
INTERPRETATION
2. (1) The definitions in this subsection apply in this Act.
…
“foreign national” means a person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident, and includes a stateless person.
“permanent resident” means a person who has acquired permanent resident status and has not subsequently lost that status under section 46.
…
OBJECTIVES AND APPLICATION
3. (1) The objectives of this Act with respect to immigration are
…
(h) to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to maintain the security of Canadian society;
(i) to promote international justice and security by fostering respect for human rights and by denying access to Canadian territory to persons who are criminals or security risks; and
…
PART 1
IMMIGRATION TO CANADA
DIVISION 3
ENTERING AND REMAINING IN CANADA
…
25. (1) The Minister shall, upon request of a foreign national who is inadmissible or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, and may, on the Minister’s own initiative, examine the circumstances concerning the foreign national and may grant the foreign national permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligation of this Act if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to them, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected, or by public policy considerations.
…
DIVISION 4
INADMISSIBILITY
33. The facts that constitute inadmissibility under sections 34 to 37 include facts arising from omissions and, unless otherwise provided, include facts for which there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have occurred, are occurring or may occur.
…
36. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality for
(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, or of an offence under an Act of Parliament for which a term of imprisonment of more than six months has been imposed;
(b) having been convicted of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years; or
(c) committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.
36. (2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for
(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by way of indictment, or of two offences under any Act of Parliament not arising out of a single occurrence;
(b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament;
(c) committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament; or
(d) committing, on entering Canada, an offence under an Act of Parliament prescribed by regulations.
36. (3) The following provisions govern subsections (1) and (2):
(a) an offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by way of indictment is deemed to be an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summarily;
(b) inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on a conviction in respect of which a pardon has been granted and has not ceased to have effect or been revoked under the Criminal Records Act, or in respect of which there has been a final determination of an acquittal;
(c) the matters referred to in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) and (2)(b) and (c) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of a permanent resident or foreign national who, after the prescribed period, satisfies the Minister that they have been rehabilitated or who is a member of a prescribed class that is deemed to have been rehabilitated;
…
(e) inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on an offence designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act or an offence under the Young Offenders Act.
…
DIVISION 5
LOSS OF STATUS AND REMOVAL
44. (1) An officer who is of the opinion that a permanent resident or a foreign national who is in Canada is inadmissible may prepare a report setting out the relevant facts, which report shall be transmitted to the Minister.
(2) If the Minister is of the opinion that the report is well-founded, the Minister may refer the report to the Immigration Division for an admissibility hearing, except in the case of a permanent resident who is inadmissible solely on the grounds that they have failed to comply with the residency obligation under section 28 and except, in the circumstances prescribed by the regulations, in the case of a foreign national. In those cases, the Minister may make a removal order.
(3) An officer or the Immigration Division may impose any conditions, including the payment of a deposit or the posting of a guarantee for compliance with the conditions, that the officer or the Division considers necessary on a permanent resident or a foreign national who is the subject of a report, an admissibility hearing or, being in Canada, a removal order.
…
PART 2
REFUGEE PROTECTION
DIVISION 3
PRE-REMOVAL RISK ASSESSMENT
112. (1) A person in Canada, other than a person referred to in subsection 115(1), may, in accordance with the regulations, apply to the Minister for protection if they are subject to a removal order that is in force or are named in a certificate described in subsection 77(1).
…
PART 4
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
Provisions that Apply to All Divisions
167. (1) Both a person who is the subject of Board proceedings and the Minister may, at their own expense, be represented by a barrister or solicitor or other counsel.
______________________________
Immigration et la protection des réfugiés, Loi sur l'
2001, ch. 27
[Sanctionnée le 1er novembre 2001]
…
DÉFINITIONS ET INTERPRÉTATION
2. (1) Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent à la présente loi.
[…]
« étranger » Personne autre qu’un citoyen canadien ou un résident permanent; la présente définition vise également les apatrides.
« résident permanent » Personne qui a le statut de résident permanent et n’a pas perdu ce statut au titre de l’article 46.
[…]
OBJET DE LA LOI
3. (1) En matière d’immigration, la présente loi a pour objet :
[…]
h) de protéger la santé des Canadiens et de garantir leur sécurité;
i) de promouvoir, à l’échelle internationale, la justice et la sécurité par le respect des droits de la personne et l’interdiction de territoire aux personnes qui sont des criminels ou constituent un danger pour la sécurité;
PARTIE 1
IMMIGRATION AU CANADA
SECTION 3
ENTRÉE ET SÉJOUR AU CANADA
25. (1) Le ministre doit, sur demande d’un étranger interdit de territoire ou qui ne se conforme pas à la présente loi, et peut, de sa propre initiative, étudier le cas de cet étranger et peut lui octroyer le statut de résident permanent ou lever tout ou partie des critères et obligations applicables, s’il estime que des circonstances d’ordre humanitaire relatives à l’étranger — compte tenu de l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant directement touché — ou l’intérêt public le justifient.
[…]
SECTION 4
INTERDICTIONS DE TERRITOIRE
33. Les faits — actes ou omissions — mentionnés aux articles 34 à 37 sont, sauf disposition contraire, appréciés sur la base de motifs raisonnables de croire qu’ils sont survenus, surviennent ou peuvent survenir.
[…]
36. (1) Emportent interdiction de territoire pour grande criminalité les faits suivants :
a) être déclaré coupable au Canada d’une infraction à une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans ou d’une infraction à une loi fédérale pour laquelle un emprisonnement de plus de six mois est infligé;
b) être déclaré coupable, à l’extérieur du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction à une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans;
c) commettre, à l’extérieur du Canada, une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction à une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.
36. (2) Emportent, sauf pour le résident permanent, interdiction de territoire pour criminalité les faits suivants :
a) être déclaré coupable au Canada d’une infraction à une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de deux infractions à toute loi fédérale qui ne découlent pas des mêmes faits;
b) être déclaré coupable, à l’extérieur du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction à une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de deux infractions qui ne découlent pas des mêmes faits et qui, commises au Canada, constitueraient des infractions à des lois fédérales;
c) commettre, à l’extérieur du Canada, une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction à une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation;
d) commettre, à son entrée au Canada, une infraction qui constitue une infraction à une loi fédérale précisée par règlement.
36. (3) Les dispositions suivantes régissent l’application des paragraphes (1) et (2) :
a) l’infraction punissable par mise en accusation ou par procédure sommaire est assimilée à l’infraction punissable par mise en accusation, indépendamment du mode de poursuite effectivement retenu;
b) la déclaration de culpabilité n’emporte pas interdiction de territoire en cas de verdict d’acquittement rendu en dernier ressort ou de réhabilitation — sauf cas de révocation ou de nullité — au titre de la Loi sur le casier judiciaire;
c) les faits visés aux alinéas (1)b) ou c) et (2)b) ou c) n’emportent pas interdiction de territoire pour le résident permanent ou l’étranger qui, à l’expiration du délai réglementaire, convainc le ministre de sa réadaptation ou qui appartient à une catégorie réglementaire de personnes présumées réadaptées;
[…]
e) l’interdiction de territoire ne peut être fondée sur une infraction qualifiée de contravention en vertu de la Loi sur les contraventions ni sur une infraction à la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants.
[…]
SECTION 5
PERTE DE STATUT ET RENVOI
44. (1) S’il estime que le résident permanent ou l’étranger qui se trouve au Canada est interdit de territoire, l’agent peut établir un rapport circonstancié, qu’il transmet au ministre.
(2) S’il estime le rapport bien fondé, le ministre peut déférer l’affaire à la Section de l’immigration pour enquête, sauf s’il s’agit d’un résident permanent interdit de territoire pour le seul motif qu’il n’a pas respecté l’obligation de résidence ou, dans les circonstances visées par les règlements, d’un étranger; il peut alors prendre une mesure de renvoi.
(3) L’agent ou la Section de l’immigration peut imposer les conditions qu’il estime nécessaires, notamment la remise d’une garantie d’exécution, au résident permanent ou à l’étranger qui fait l’objet d’un rapport ou d’une enquête ou, étant au Canada, d’une mesure de renvoi.
[…]
PARTIE 2
PROTECTION DES RÉFUGIÉS
SECTION 3
EXAMEN DES RISQUES AVANT RENVOI
112. (1) La personne se trouvant au Canada et qui n’est pas visée au paragraphe 115(1) peut, conformément aux règlements, demander la protection au ministre si elle est visée par une mesure de renvoi ayant pris effet ou nommée au certificat visé au paragraphe 77(1).
[…]
PARTIE 4
COMMISSION DE L’IMMIGRATION ET DU STATUT DE RÉFUGIÉ
Attributions communes
167. (1) L’intéressé peut en tout cas se faire représenter devant la Commission, à ses frais, par un avocat ou un autre conseil.
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations
SOR/2002-227
…
PART 3
INADMISSIBILITY
17. For the purposes of paragraph 36(3)(c) of the Act, the prescribed period is five years
…
18.(1) For the purposes of paragraph 36(3)(c) of the Act, the class of persons deemed to have been rehabilitated is a prescribed class.
…
PART 13
REMOVAL
DIVISION 2
SPECIFIED REMOVAL ORDER
228. (1) For the purposes of subsection 44(2) of the Act, and subject to subsections (3) and (4), if a report in respect of a foreign national does not include any grounds of inadmissibility other than those set out in the following circumstances, the report shall not be referred to the Immigration Division and any removal order made shall be
(a) if the foreign national is inadmissible under paragraph 36(1)(a) or (2)(a) of the Act on grounds of serious criminality or criminality, a deportation order;
(b) if the foreign national is inadmissible under paragraph 40(1)(c) of the Act on grounds of misrepresentation, a deportation order;
(c) if the foreign national is inadmissible under section 41 of the Act on grounds of
(i) failing to appear for further examination or an admissibility hearing under Part 1 of the Act, an exclusion order,
(ii) failing to obtain the authorization of an officer required by subsection 52(1) of the Act, a deportation order,
(iii) failing to establish that they hold the visa or other document as required under section 20 of the Act, an exclusion order,
(iv) failing to leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay as required by subsection 29(2) of the Act, an exclusion order, or
(v) failing to comply with subsection 29(2) of the Act to comply with any condition set out in section 184, an exclusion order; and
228. (2) For the purposes of subsection 44(2) of the Act, if a removal order is made against a permanent resident who fails to comply with the residency obligation under section 28 of the Act, the order shall be a departure order.
…
228. (4) For the purposes of subsection (1), a report in respect of a foreign national does not include a report in respect of a foreign national who
(a) is under 18 years of age and not accompanied by a parent or an adult legally responsible for them; or
(b) is unable, in the opinion of the Minister, to appreciate the nature of the proceedings and is not accompanied by a parent or an adult legally responsible for them.
….
229.(4) If the Immigration Division makes a removal order against a foreign national with respect to any grounds of inadmissibility that are circumstances set out in section 228, the Immigration Division shall make
(a) the removal order that the Minister would have made if the report had not been referred to the Immigration Division under subsection 44(2) of the Act; or
(b) in the case of a foreign national described in paragraph 228(4)(a) or (b), the removal order that the Minister would have made if the foreign national had not been described in that paragraph.
…
DIVISION 3
STAY OF REMOVAL ORDERS
232. A removal order is stayed when a person is notified by the Department under subsection 160(3) that they may make an application under subsection 112(1) of the Act,
…
233. A removal order made against a foreign national, and any family member of the foreign national, is stayed if the Minister is of the opinion under subsection 25(1) of the Act that there exist humanitarian and compassionate considerations, or public policy considerations, and the stay is effective until a decision is made to grant, or not grant, permanent resident status
Règlement sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés
DORS/2002-227
[…]
PARTIE 3
INTERDICTIONS DE TERRITOIRE
17. Pour l’application de l’alinéa 36(3)c) de la Loi, le délai réglementaire est de cinq ans à compter :
[…]
18. (1) Pour l’application de l’alinéa 36(3)c) de la Loi, la catégorie des personnes présumées réadaptées est une catégorie réglementaire.
[…]
PARTIE 13
RENVOI
SECTION 2
MESURES DE RENVOI À PRENDRE
228. (1) Pour l'application du paragraphe 44(2) de la Loi, mais sous réserve des paragraphes (3) et (4), dans le cas où elle ne comporte pas de motif d'interdiction de territoire autre que ceux prévus dans l'une des circonstances ci-après, l'affaire n'est pas déférée à la Section de l'immigration et la mesure de renvoi à prendre est celle indiquée en regard du motif en cause :
a) en cas d'interdiction de territoire de l'étranger pour grande criminalité ou criminalité au titre des alinéas 36(1)a) ou (2)a) de la Loi, l'expulsion;
b) en cas d’interdiction de territoire de l’étranger pour fausses déclarations au titre de l’alinéa 40(1)c) de la Loi, l’expulsion;
c) en cas d’interdiction de territoire de l’étranger au titre de l’article 41 de la Loi pour manquement à :
(i) l’obligation prévue à la partie 1 de la Loi de se présenter au contrôle complémentaire ou à l’enquête, l’exclusion,
(ii) l’obligation d’obtenir l’autorisation de l’agent aux termes du paragraphe 52(1) de la Loi, l’expulsion,
(iii) l’obligation prévue à l’article 20 de la Loi de prouver qu’il détient les visa et autres documents réglementaires, l’exclusion,
(iv) l’obligation prévue au paragraphe 29(2) de la Loi de quitter le Canada à la fin de la période de séjour autorisée, l’exclusion,
(v) l’obligation prévue au paragraphe 29(2) de la Loi de se conformer aux conditions imposées à l’article 184, l’exclusion;
228. (2) Pour l’application du paragraphe 44(2) de la Loi, si le résident permanent manque à l’obligation de résidence prévue à l’article 28 de la Loi, la mesure de renvoi qui peut être prise à son égard est l’interdiction de séjour.
[…]
228. (4) Pour l’application du paragraphe (1), l’affaire ne vise pas l’affaire à l’égard d’un étranger qui :
a) soit est âgé de moins de dix-huit ans et n’est pas accompagné par un parent ou un adulte qui en est légalement responsable;
b) soit n’est pas, selon le ministre, en mesure de comprendre la nature de la procédure et n’est pas accompagné par un parent ou un adulte qui en est légalement responsable.
[…]
229.4) Si la Section de l’immigration prend une mesure de renvoi à l’égard d’un étranger pour tout motif d’interdiction de territoire visé par l’une des circonstances prévues à l’article 228, elle prend, selon le cas :
a) la mesure de renvoi que le ministre aurait prise si l’affaire ne lui avait pas été déférée en application du paragraphe 44(2) de la Loi;
b) dans le cas de l’étranger visé aux alinéas 228(4)a) ou b), la mesure de renvoi que le ministre aurait prise si l’étranger n’avait pas été visé à ces alinéas.
[…]
SECTION 3
SURSIS
232. Il est sursis à la mesure de renvoi dès le moment où le ministère avise l’intéressé aux termes du paragraphe 160(3) qu’il peut faire une demande de protection au titre du paragraphe 112(1) de la Loi.
[…]
233. La décision du ministre prise au titre du paragraphe 25(1) de la Loi selon laquelle il estime que des circonstances d'ordre humanitaire existent ou que l'intérêt public le justifie emporte sursis de la mesure de renvoi visant l'étranger et les membres de sa famille jusqu'à ce qu'il soit statué sur sa demande de résidence permanente.
The standard of review
[16] Lemieux J. applied the right standard of review when he determined that questions pertaining to the scope of the duty of fairness attract a standard of correctness. With respect to the scope, if any, of the Minister’s delegate discretion in subsection 44(2) of the Act, that is a question of law which also attracts the standard of correctness. The judge having applied the proper standards, the role of this Court is to determine whether he made an error of law in the answers he gave to the two questions he certified.
Principles of statutory interpretation
[17] As noted by Deschamps J. in Glykis v. Hydro‑Québec, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 285, at paragraph 5,
A statutory provision must be read in its entire context, taking into consideration not only the ordinary and grammatical sense of the words, but also the scheme and object of the statute, and the intention of the legislature.
The provision at issue and the use of the word “may”
[18] The provision at issue is subsection 44 (2) of the Act. At its face, that provision, by using the word “may”, grants the Minister’s delegate the discretion to exercise or not to exercise the power he has under that subsection to issue himself a removal order against a foreign national.
[19] In Ruby v. Canada (Solicitor General) (C.A.), [2000] 3 F.C. 589, at pp. 623 to 626, Létourneau J.A. reminded us that the use of the word “may” is often a signal that a margin of discretion is given to an administrative decision maker. It can sometimes be read in context as “must” or “shall”, thereby rebutting the presumptive rule in section 11 of the Interpretation Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21) that “may” is permissive. It can also be read as no more than a signal from the legislator that an official is being empowered to do something. Even when “may” is read as granting discretion, all grants of discretion are not created equal: depending on the purpose and object of the legislation, there may be considerable discretion, or there may be little.
[20] In the case at bar, the Minister does not take the position that “may” should be read as “shall”. The Minister argues, rather, that the discretion of the Minister’s delegate not to issue a removal order is a very narrow one that should be exercised in the rarest of circumstances.
[21] Subsection 44(2) of the Act applies to all grounds of inadmissibility. These grounds encompass such diverse areas as security, human or international rights violations, serious criminality, criminality, organized criminality, health, financial reasons, misrepresentation and non-compliance with the Act. The complexity of the facts at issue varies from ground to ground. Some grounds have legal components, others not. The subsection applies to permanent residents and to foreign nationals, who are not usually subject to the same treatment under the terms of the Act. The subsection applies both to the power of the Minister’s delegate to refer the report to the Immigration Division and to his power to issue the removal order himself.
[22] The scope of the discretion, therefore, may end up varying depending on the grounds alleged, on whether the person concerned is a permanent resident or a foreign national and on whether the report is referred or not to the Immigration Division . There may be a room for discretion in some cases, and none in others. This is why it was wise to use the term “may”.
General considerations on the object of the statute and the intention of the legislature
[23] Immigration is a privilege, not a right. Non-citizens do not have an unqualified right to enter or remain in the country. Parliament has the right to enact legislation prescribing the conditions under which non-citizens will be permitted to enter and remain in Canada. As a result, the Act and the Regulations treat citizens differently than permanent residents, who in turn are treated differently than Convention refugees, who are in turn treated differently than other foreign nationals. (Chieu v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 84, at paragraph 57; Chiarelli v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1992] 1 R.C.S. 711 at pages 733, 734; Medovarski v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 39 at paragraph 46). It is fair to say that compared to other types of
non-citizens, foreign nationals who are temporary residents receive little substantive and procedural protection throughout the Act.
[24] Parliament has made it clear that criminality of non-citizens is a major concern. Two of the objectives of the Act are criminality driven:
─ The protection of the health and safety of Canadians and the maintenance of the security of Canadian society (paragraph 3(1)(h) of the Act).
─ The promotion of international justice and security… by the denial of access to Canadian territory to persons who are criminals or security risks (paragraph 3(1) (i)) of the Act).
The Supreme Court of Canada has recently stated that the objectives stated in the new Act indicate an intent to prioritize security and that this objective is given effect, inter alia, by removing applicants with criminal records from Canada. Parliament has demonstrated a strong desire in the new Act to treat criminals less leniently than under the former Act. (Medovarski, supra, at paragraph 10).
[25] One of the conditions Parliament has imposed on a non-citizen’s right to remain in Canada is that he or she not be convicted of certain criminal offences (section 36 of the Act). As observed by Sopinka J. in Chiarelli, supra, at p. 734, commenting on the former Immigration Act,
This condition represents a legitimate, non-arbitrary choice by Parliament of a situation in which it is not in the public interest to allow a non-citizen to remain in the country. The requirement that