Housekeeping

1. Housekeeping • Next Wednesday, continental breakfast and other treats from 8:45 • Life is Short: the trafficking cases and detention cases will not be on the exam, nor will the trafficking IRPA provisions • 2nd assignment –it’s not for everyone!! • assignments are marked, please get them from me

2. Ferguson v Canada FC 2005 • fraud conviction in US • at issue: wd the offence be punishable by up to ten years or would it be a lesser offence (i.e. ‘uttering’ or merely ‘possessing’ a forged instrument) • process for determining equivalency with Cdn offences • look at the evidence adduced: ‘underlying facts’ and consider the essential elements of the Cdn offence • standard of proof: reasonable grounds to believe

3. Chiau v Canada FCA 2000 • membership + organized criminality • n.b. length of process bc of JR • concept of balancing ind interests vs national security • few ‘rights’ associated with obtaining a visa: contrast with deportation setting • role of confidential information + secret submissions • ignore old legislative provisions

4. Saini v Canada FCA 2001 • status of foreign pardon • review of important Burgon decision • central principle: all those convicted of crimes are not necessarily excluded from Canada forever • foreign law does not supercede Cdn law, esp wrt Cdn standards of ‘seriousness’

5. Burgon fashioned into a three part test: • foreign legal system as a whole must be similar to that of Canada • aim content and effect of specific fgn law must be similar to that of Canada • no valid reason not to recognize the effect of the foreign law In this case, seriousness of the offence is ‘good reason to ignore’ the foreign pardon N.B. fgn law must be proven as a matter of fact

6. Aviles v Canada FC 2005 • ordinary criminality example (s. 36(2)) • one time shoplifting case • shows operation of the Reg 18 rehabilitation provisions

7. Mugesera v Canada SCC 2005 • PR loss of status for misrepresentation (partner and children especially) • genocide, crimes against humanity, translation and interpretation • interpretation of ‘reasonable grounds’: a lower standard than the balance of probabilities, an objective basis for the belief, based on compelling and credible information • this std applies only to ?s of fact • allows appeal from FCA decision: deportation is possible • much is about criminal law, increasingly important for immigration setting

8. Deol v Canada FCA 2002 • leave to SCC denied • old provisions but fits with new regs • cost and availability both relevant to excessive demand • age comparator group relevant to cost, not availability, and need not be statistical • ability to pay privately is not relevant (n.b. Manitoba ‘bonding’ scheme), query whether this has changed • not relevant that elective surgery may be declined • S. 15 argument on grounds of disability: application of Law…not stereotyping discrimination that affects a human dignity interest of the sponsor • some issues clarified by IRPR

9. Hilewitz v Canada 2005 SCC key issue: is wealth relevant to consideration of ‘excessive demand’ criterion? • subsidiary issue: are health services to be treated differently than social services in this regard? • investor and self-employed applications: not as similar as the Court suggests • interesting history of these provisions (and absence of the welfare state) • note distinction of roles between the visa officer and the medical officer • key reasoning: admission in this case is on the basis of wealth, incoherent to discount it when regarding inadmissiblity

10. oddly, did not consider how regs define excessive demand and provide some limits to it • contingencies are always possible • “might reasonably be expected to” means “more likely than not” • dissent: statutory interpretation, not policy! • concern with inconsistency and with where to rest this decision-making power