Mary Lam

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed Ms. Pepa’s appeal from Federal Court of Appeal and Federal Court judgments that upheld an Immigration Appeal Division ruling denying jurisdiction under s. 63(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

A majority held the IAD’s interpretation was unreasonable and concluded the only reasonable interpretation is that visa-holder status for this appeal right is assessed at the time of arrival in Canada, then remitted the matter to the IAD for determination of the removal-order appeal.

Rowe J. agreed the decision was unreasonable but would have remitted without declaring a single reasonable interpretation, while Côté and O’Bonsawin JJ. would have dismissed the appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of an exclusion order issued by the Immigration Division for misrepresentation and a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division dismissing her appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to disclose her marriage before arriving in Canada with a permanent resident visa as an accompanying dependant.

The Federal Court held that the Immigration Division reasonably found she breached her duty of candour and did not breach procedural fairness.

The Court also upheld the Immigration Appeal Division's conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction under subsection 63(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act because the applicant's visa had expired before the exclusion order was issued.

The applications for judicial review were dismissed.

The applicant, a citizen of China, sought permanent residence under the spouse/common-law partner category, listing his former wife as his sponsor.

An immigration officer refused the application, finding insufficient evidence of mutual interdependency to establish a genuine common-law relationship.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair because he was not granted an interview.

The Federal Court held the decision was reasonable as the officer was not required to mention all evidence and there was no general duty to interview applicants.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal regarding the interpretation of s. 11(3) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, agreeing with the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeal and the trial judge's interpretation of the provision.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was set aside and the trial judge's order was restored.