Immigration Law - OCJ

Ji Feng pleaded guilty to failing to stop at an accident resulting in death, contrary to section 320.16(3) of the Criminal Code.

The incident involved striking and killing a cyclist while distracted by medical news, followed by deliberate actions to obscure her involvement.

The Crown sought a nine-month jail sentence, while the defence proposed a twelve-month conditional sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for such a grave offense, noting the maximum life imprisonment penalty.

Despite mitigating factors like a guilty plea, remorse, and positive rehabilitative prospects, the court found a conditional sentence inconsistent with sentencing principles due to the accused's heightened moral culpability from obscuring her involvement.

A traditional jail sentence was deemed necessary to denounce the conduct.

Considering the potential immigration consequences for the non-citizen accused, the court imposed a sentence of 179 days jail, a two-year driving prohibition, and a DNA sample, allowing for an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness brought a motion within ongoing child protection proceedings, seeking disclosure of case documents and the right to make submissions regarding a final supervision order.

This was prompted by an existing deportation order against the mother and one child, which is stayed if the Minister has an opportunity to make submissions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, the mother, and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer opposed the extent of the Minister's requested involvement, arguing for limited submissions and no disclosure.

The court found it had jurisdiction, either explicitly under the Family Law Rules or implicitly, to order disclosure to a non-party.

It ruled that the Minister was entitled to make informed and meaningful submissions on all relevant issues, including whether a genuine lis existed between the parties, and ordered the society to provide past and future relevant documents, with strict conditions on their use to protect privacy.

The applicant sought spousal support following the breakdown of her marriage to the respondent.

The applicant had immigrated to Canada from Mexico, was sponsored by the respondent, and they married in 2012.

After the applicant's refugee claim was denied, she returned to Mexico and waited approximately 3.5 years for her sponsorship to be processed.

Upon her return to Canada in 2015, the parties cohabited for nine months before separating.

The applicant sought $1,500 per month for three years, citing the respondent's sponsorship undertaking and her need for retraining.

The respondent argued the applicant was not entitled to support and should be self-sufficient.

The court found the applicant entitled to spousal support on both a non-compensatory needs basis and a contractual basis arising from the sponsorship agreement.

The court awarded $1,000 per month for 18 months (December 1, 2018 to June 30, 2020), declining to impute income to the applicant and declining to award retroactive support due to the potential social assistance debt repayment obligation.

The defendant was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a 15-year-old passenger in his Uber vehicle.

The Crown sought 12 months jail; the defence sought the mandatory minimum of 90 days.

The court imposed 11.5 months jail structured as two consecutive sentences of 173 days each (plus 3 days presentence custody) to remain below the 6-month threshold that would trigger mandatory deportation consequences under immigration law.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for offences involving children, and noted the defendant's lack of remorse, empathy, and insight into his conduct as aggravating factors.

The defendant was charged with two counts under section 126 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for counselling and aiding or abetting individuals to misrepresent material facts to Canadian immigration authorities.

The defendant purchased plane tickets for two individuals from Barbados and instructed them to misrepresent their relationship to him upon arrival in Canada.

Both individuals subsequently made successful refugee claims.

After the Crown closed its case, the defendant moved for a directed verdict.

The court granted the motion and dismissed all charges, finding that the Crown failed to establish that the misrepresentations could have induced an error in the administration of the Act.

The court held that the misrepresentation regarding the nature of the relationship was immaterial to admissibility as either a visitor or refugee claimant, and that the Crown's evidence did not support a connection between the misrepresentation and any error in the administration of the Act.

The defendant was convicted after trial of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

Police discovered 169 pounds of marijuana in a van that the defendant was driving after he breached a police roadblock.

The Crown sought a sentence of nine to twelve months' imprisonment, while the defence sought a ninety-day intermittent sentence.

The court imposed a ninety-day intermittent sentence with three years' probation, community service, and an enhanced victim surcharge, balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation and the defendant's personal circumstances, including his long-term permanent resident status and family ties in Canada.

The defendant pleaded guilty to impaired driving, fail to stop for police, and drive while disqualified arising from a high-speed chase on November 17, 2015.

The Crown sought consecutive sentences totalling 12-15 months, while the defence sought a global 12-month sentence, arguing for reduced sentences due to serious immigration consequences.

The court imposed consecutive sentences totalling 12 months (6 months for impaired driving with 3-month credit for restrictive bail conditions, 4 months for fail to stop for police, and 2 months for drive disqualified), along with a 10-year driving prohibition and 3 years probation.

The court considered collateral immigration consequences under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act but ensured sentences remained proportionate to the offences.

The offender pled guilty to seven counts of counselling misrepresentation contrary to section 126 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Over a five-year period, the offender, an unlicensed immigration consultant, exploited vulnerable would-be immigrants seeking entry through the Live-In Caregiver Program by providing false employment contracts and Labour Market Opinions, charging substantial fees while delivering no legitimate services.

The offender threatened victims who complained.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months imprisonment (11 months after pre-trial custody credit), three years probation with conditions including a prohibition on providing immigration advice, no contact orders with victims, and restitution orders totalling $23,500.

The accused pleaded guilty to exposing his genital organs to his 11-year-old step-daughter contrary to section 173(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded by indictment.

The offence was the beginning of a pattern of sexual exploitation of the victim.

The accused is a recidivist with a prior conviction for sexual assault on his niece.

The court considered 812 text messages exchanged between the accused and the victim over a six-month period as evidence of uncharged conduct under section 725(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The parties disagreed on the amount of presentence custody to be attributed to the sentence, with the Crown seeking 10 months and the defence seeking 5 months and 29 days to avoid immigration consequences.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with three years probation and ancillary orders.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of fraud over $5,000 and one count of unauthorized use of a credit card.

Between March and August 2013, she defrauded her employer, a Shopper's Drug Mart, of $110,484.28 USD by facilitating fraudulent transactions using American Express credit cards while exploiting a security flaw in the company's system.

The employer suffered devastating consequences, losing his franchise agreement and substantial income.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 5½ months followed by three years of probation, taking into account the defendant's status as a permanent resident and the collateral immigration consequences of a sentence exceeding six months.

A custody and access trial involving a child born to unmarried parents who subsequently married and separated.

The applicant mother, facing deportation to St. Vincent due to illegal immigration status, sought sole custody and permission to remove the child from Canada.

The respondent father sought sole or joint custody with a non-removal order.

The court found the mother's evidence lacked credibility due to her illegal status and inconsistent testimony.

The court ordered joint custody with primary residence to the mother while she remains in Canada, with extensive access to the father.

If deported, sole custody transfers to the father.

The court imposed a non-removal order preventing the mother from taking the child out of Ontario without court order, while permitting the father to travel freely with the child.

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.

The defendant pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon following an incident on Christmas morning 2014 in which he stabbed the victim once in the chest with a knife.

The Crown sought fifteen months' imprisonment while the defence sought less than six months.

The court considered the defendant's background, including his status as a permanent resident, his mental health and substance abuse issues, his positive pre-sentence report, and the relatively modest physical injuries sustained by the victim.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of approximately six months based on pre-sentence custody credit, suspended the passing of sentence, and placed the defendant on three years' probation with conditions including community service, substance abuse and mental health counselling, and a no-contact order with the victim.

The applicant sought temporary spousal support following separation from the respondent after a four-year marriage.

The applicant, who lacks legal immigration status in Canada, sought $2,125 per month and imputation of $103,000 income to the respondent.

The respondent disputed financial dependency and claimed the applicant had undisclosed cash income.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie case for entitlement on both non-compensatory (need) and contractual (sponsorship undertaking) bases.

The court imputed income of $56,000 annually to the respondent based on unreasonable business expense deductions.

Departing from Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines due to basic needs exception and immigration sponsorship circumstances, the court awarded $1,000 per month in temporary spousal support commencing April 1, 2015, with arrears of $4,000.

Following a trial conducted over multiple days in May and June 2014, the accused was found guilty of attempted murder and criminal harassment against his former girlfriend and colleague.

The accused had engaged in a months-long campaign of harassment involving numerous emails attempting to coerce the victim into continuing their relationship.

On September 23, 2013, the accused stabbed and wounded the victim in a bush lot near her home in Waterloo.

The victim's injuries were superficial but potentially life-threatening.

The accused subsequently inflicted serious self-harm.

The sentencing decision addresses the principles of denunciation and general deterrence in the context of domestic violence, the significance of planning and deliberation, and the collateral consequences of deportation for a non-citizen offender.

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.

A Hague Convention application for the return of a child to Latvia, brought by the father against the mother who fled with the child to Canada.

The mother and child were recognized as Convention refugees based on domestic violence perpetrated by the father.

The court found that while the removal was wrongful under the Hague Convention, the exceptions under Articles 13(b) and 20 applied due to the grave risk of harm to the child and mother if returned, the principle of non-refoulement, and the inability of the Latvian justice system to protect victims of domestic violence.

The application was dismissed and interim custody was granted to the mother.

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.

Two defendants pleaded guilty to attempting to aid and abet a foreign national to misrepresent material facts under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by providing her with a fraudulently used Canadian passport to attempt entry into Canada.

The defendants were detected at the border when the female passenger did not match the photograph in the passport presented.

The court imposed a fine of $5,000 on each defendant, rejecting the Crown's request for six months incarceration.

The court found the defendants fell into the less serious category of offenders, as their crime was motivated by humanitarian concerns rather than financial gain, and was ultimately easily detected.