2 total
Security inadmissibility under IRPA s. 34(1)(e) requires a nexus to national security.
Two foreign nationals were found inadmissible on security grounds under s. 34(1)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for engaging in acts of violence, without any alleged link to national security or the security of Canada.
The administrative tribunals interpreted s. 34(1)(e) as not requiring such a nexus.
Applying the Vavilov reasonableness review framework, the Supreme Court held that the administrative decisions were unreasonable for failing to address critical points of statutory context, the broad consequences of the interpretation, and Canada's non-refoulement obligations under the Refugee Convention.
The Court held that the only reasonable interpretation of s. 34(1)(e) requires a nexus between the relevant acts of violence and national security or the security of Canada.
Appeals allowed and administrative decisions quashed.
Judicial review allowed as IRPA paragraph 34(1)(e) inadmissibility requires a national security nexus.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Division finding him inadmissible to Canada under paragraph 34(1)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) for engaging in acts of violence.
The Board concluded that the provision applied to violence endangering individuals, regardless of a nexus to national security.
Applying comity to a recent Federal Court decision, Mason v. Canada, which held that paragraph 34(1)(e) requires a national security nexus, the Court allowed the application, set aside the Board's decision, and certified a question on the interpretation of the provision.
