Immigration Law

The respondent sought an extension of the suspension of the declaration of invalidity of certain provisions of the Citizenship Act.

The declaration was originally suspended for six months from December 19, 2023, and has been extended multiple times.

The respondent sought an extension to January 20, 2026 (reduced from April 22, 2026 by consent).

The court granted a two-month extension to January 20, 2026, noting significant progress in enacting replacement legislation with a reasonable expectation that it may come into force by the end of 2025.

The court adjourned the balance of the motion to January 13, 2026.

This is a costs decision following a successful appeal by the mother in a family law matter involving the Hague Convention and refugee status.

The mother's appeal overturned the application judge's decision to return the child to the country of origin after Canada granted the child refugee status.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the mother as the wholly successful party, fixing costs at $50,000 for the application and $30,000 for the appeal, totalling $80,000, while reversing the application judge's award of $75,000 to the father.

The appellant appealed his conviction for theft over $5,000, seeking to withdraw his guilty plea on the grounds that it was not informed.

The appellant claimed he was unaware that a conviction would result in automatic deportation with no right of appeal.

The trial judge had imposed a suspended sentence and 12 months probation.

The appellate court found that the appellant was sufficiently informed of the immigration consequences through his trial counsel's advice that he could be deported and should seek independent immigration legal advice.

The court rejected the appellant's claim that he needed to know with certainty that he would be deported, finding that knowledge of the possibility of deportation was sufficient.

The court also found that the appellant had not established prejudice, as his primary concern was avoiding jail time, which the guilty plea achieved.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, a permanent resident from Barbados, sought leave to extend the time to file an appeal of a sentence imposed on July 7, 2021, for breaking and entering offences.

The applicant's motivation was to preserve his right to appeal a deportation order to the Immigration Appeal Division, as sentences of six months or more eliminate this right.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal, failed to adequately explain the delay, and that the appeal had been rendered moot by the applicant's subsequent conviction and nine-month sentence imposed on February 19, 2025.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness' decision to refuse an Interim Measures Request (IMR) from the United Nations Human Rights Committee and proceed with the applicant's removal to Somalia.

The applicant, a permanent resident with serious mental health issues and criminal convictions, had been found inadmissible to Canada and subject to a deportation order.

The court addressed justiciability and jurisdiction, finding concurrent jurisdiction between the Ontario Superior Court and Federal Court over Crown prerogative matters.

The court found the Minister's decision reasonable and not requiring reasons, as it involved an exercise of Crown prerogative regarding international treaty obligations that are not binding on Canada domestically.

Three young men were convicted by jury of aggravated assault following an unprovoked group attack on a social worker protecting a vulnerable child at a hotel in London, Ontario on December 29, 2021.

The victim was stabbed five times and suffered multiple injuries.

The court sentenced the offenders to terms of imprisonment, considering their youth, refugee backgrounds, family support systems, and immigration consequences, while emphasizing the serious nature of the group violence and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The appellant, Errol Francis, appealed the sentence imposed for sexual assault.

The only issue on appeal was whether the sentencing judge erred by not considering that a conditional sentence order would have preserved the appellant’s right to appeal under s. 36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Court of Appeal found that, although defence counsel misstated the law, the sentencing judge’s reasons made clear that a conditional sentence would have been unfit given the seriousness of the case.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence, mischief, and fraud.

The Crown sought detention on primary and secondary grounds under section 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

The accused's refugee status had been revoked by the Immigration and Refugee Board based on fingerprint evidence linking him to a criminal record in Colombia.

The accused presented evidence suggesting his identity had been fraudulently used by another person in Colombia.

The court found the accused presented a serious flight risk and that there was a substantial likelihood he would commit further criminal offences if released.

The proposed sureties were found to be unreliable.

The accused was ordered detained in pre-trial custody.

The defendants were charged with aiding and abetting others to enter Canada without appearing for examination before a Canada Border Services Officer, contrary to section 124(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The defendants brought a constitutional challenge under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 and sections 15, 7, and 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The defendants claimed an aboriginal right to mobility within Mohawk territory at Akwesasne for family and community purposes without reporting at the border, and alleged that the reporting requirements were discriminatory and violated their liberty and freedom of association.

The court dismissed all constitutional challenges and found the defendants guilty.

Motions to change a joint custody order where the mother faces deportation to St. Vincent.

The mother sought sole custody and permission to take the child with her; the father sought sole custody with the child remaining in Canada.

The court found a material change in circumstances warranting review.

While joint custody continued during the mother's residence in Canada, the court ordered that upon deportation, sole custody would transfer to the father in Canada, with specified access for the mother including two months summer access and alternate winter holidays in St. Vincent.

Child support obligations were terminated upon deportation, with arrears to be repaid at an increased rate.

The accused was charged with two offences under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: (1) returning to Canada without authorization after a removal order was enforced, contrary to section 52(1); and (2) failing to appear for examination at a port of entry, contrary to section 18(1).

The accused had been issued an Exclusion Order on June 18, 2012, and deported to the United States.

He subsequently re-entered Canada in September 2012 without presenting himself for examination at a port of entry.

The Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused admitted knowledge of the Exclusion Order and his inadmissibility but chose to return to Canada anyway.

The court found guilt on both counts.

The defendant pleaded guilty to misrepresenting her identity to claim refugee status under section 127(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted for a three-month conditional sentence.

The court rejected the joint submission, finding it contrary to the public interest, and instead imposed a suspended sentence with six months probation and conditions including reporting to a probation officer, counselling, and 20 hours of community service.

The court distinguished the case from similar immigration fraud cases based on the defendant's status as a Canadian citizen, her age and immaturity at the time of the offence, her genuine remorse, and the absence of economic loss to the public.

In an extradition proceeding, the person sought applied for disclosure of communications between Canadian and United States authorities relating to his return to the United States.

The applicant alleged that earlier deportation proceedings in Canada were in fact a disguised extradition process amounting to an abuse of process under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Applying the test from R. v. Larosa, the court considered whether the allegation had an air of reality and whether the requested materials were likely relevant.

The close timing between the issuance of a U.S. criminal complaint and a Canadian immigration arrest warrant raised a realistic possibility of cross-border communications.

The court held that the allegation was not a fishing expedition and ordered disclosure.

The applicant father sought temporary custody of two young children and permission to relocate them to France.

The respondent mother opposed the transfer and sought return of the children to her primary care.

The court found that the father's concerns about the mother's mental health deterioration during the summer were credible and well-grounded, supported by observations from multiple independent sources including the Children's Aid Society.

The court determined that the father could provide greater stability for the children at that time and granted him temporary custody with supervised access for the mother.

The court also granted permission for the father to relocate with the children to France, finding that Canada was not the appropriate jurisdiction for long-term parenting arrangements given immigration constraints, language considerations, and the availability of family support in France.

The court considered whether to award costs to the Attorney General following proceedings involving a detained individual seeking relief relating to immigration detention.

Although the court accepted it had jurisdiction to award costs to the Attorney General, it declined to do so.

The judge found the application was not an instance of forum shopping and acknowledged the applicant’s frustrations arising from dealings with the Immigration Division.

Given the circumstances surrounding detention and the applicant’s attempt to seek relief, the court exercised its discretion not to award costs.

The accused pleaded guilty to possessing a genuine Nigerian passport that could be used to establish identity contrary to section 122(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and to misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to the true identity of a passenger that could induce an error in the administration of the Act contrary to section 127(a).

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of approximately nine months, while defence counsel sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of one year to be served in the community with strict conditions, including house arrest for the first six months, community service, and ongoing supervision.

The offender pleaded guilty to sexual assault after failing to disclose that he was likely infected with HSV-2 (genital herpes) before engaging in unprotected sexual intercourse with the complainant.

The complainant subsequently contracted the virus and suffered significant physical and emotional harm.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with one year of probation, including 80 hours of community service and a ten-year SOIRA order, rather than a custodial sentence or conviction.

The decision represents a "test case" on sentencing for sexual transmission of herpes through non-disclosure, with the court emphasizing the novel nature of the offence and the disproportionate immigration consequences that would follow a conviction.

The accused, a pastor of a Spanish Pentecostal Church in London, Ontario, was charged with withholding material facts during border entry and attempting to aid and abet an undocumented individual to contravene immigration requirements.

The accused claimed duress, alleging that the hidden passenger threatened harm to his family in El Salvador if he did not smuggle him into Canada.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, holding that the alleged threat of harm to the accused's parents lacked the temporal immediacy required for the duress defence and that the threat was too contingent and remote to constitute immediate harm.

The court also found the accused's account of events improbable and incredible.