1 total
Information sharing instructed by a Canadian manager was not covert and therefore not espionage.
The applicant, a dual Russian/US citizen, was sponsored for permanent residence by her Canadian husband.
The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) found her inadmissible for espionage under s. 34(1)(a) of the IRPA because she had answered questions from a Russian intelligence agent while working as an interpreter on a Canadian-funded housing project in Russia in 1994.
The Federal Court granted judicial review, finding the IAD's decision unreasonable.
The Court held that the applicant's actions were not secret or covert—the defining characteristics of espionage—because she had disclosed the contact to her Canadian manager (her future husband), who instructed her to cooperate.
The IAD's finding that their later romantic relationship vitiated his consent was factually unsupported, as the relationship began after the initial instruction.
