I. INTRODUCTION

[1] Mr. Qita is an immigration consultant and has an immigration services business which operates under the name of Explore Canada Immigrant Services, Inc. (“Explore Canada”).

[2] 7891296 Canada Incorporated (“789 Canada”) is also a corporation operated by Mr. Qita. It operates in the field of IT.

[3] Mr. Qita and 789 Canada are charged with several offences under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (“IRPA”). The offences relate to allegations of misrepresentations (s. 126 IRPA) and counselling misrepresentations (ss. 127(a) IRPA) in relation to the sponsorship applications of nine Syrian refugee families. The applications were submitted under the Private Sponsorship of Refugees (“PSR”) program.

[4] The Crown’s evidence at trial was presented over the course of 16 days. The Crown called ten witnesses and relied on thousands of pages of documentary evidence, which included the immigration forms submitted on behalf of the refugee applicants, the immigration forms submitted by the sponsors, sponsorship agreements, bank statements, invoices, receipts and other accounting documents for Explore Canada and/or 798 Canada, emails, letter, excerpts from Immigration Refugee and Citizenship Canada[^1] guides and manuals, and bank drafts.

[5] At the conclusion of the Crown’s case, counsel for the accused advised that he intended to bring a motion for directed verdict. The motion for directed verdict was heard over three days.

[6] On November 30, 2020, I dismissed the Applicants’ motion for directed verdict and written reasons would follow. These are those reasons.

II. THE CHARGES

[7] There are 14 counts on the Indictment. Mr. Qita and 789 Canada are jointly charged with four counts of misrepresentation contrary to ss. 127(a) of IRPA. These four counts relate to the applications made under the PSR program for Mohammed Kara Ali (“Mr. Kara Ali”), Radwan Amayri (“Mr. R. Amayri”), Ismaiel Jourieh (“Mr. Jourieh”) and Almuatsem Amairi (“Mr. A. Amairi”).

[8] Mr. Qita is solely charged with five counts of misrepresentation contrary to ss. 127(a) of IRPA. These five counts relate to applications made under the PSR program for Obiada Aswad, Orwa Aswad, Hakam Tanish (“Mr. Tanish”), Ebtasem Eisa (“Ms. Eisa”) and Yasser Salem (“Mr. Salem”).

[9] Mr. Qita is also solely charged with five counts of counselling misrepresentation contrary to s. 126 of IRPA. These five counts relate to Mr. Tanish, Mr. R. Amayri, Orwa Aswad, Obiada Aswad, and Mr. A. Amairi.

[10] Sections 126, 127(a), and 128 of IRPA provide that

Counselling misrepresentation

126 Every person who knowingly counsels, induces, aids or abets or attempts to counsel, induce, aid or abet any person to directly or indirectly misrepresent or withhold material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act is guilty of an offence.

Misrepresentation

127 No person shall knowingly

(a) directly or indirectly misrepresent or withhold material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act;

Penalties

128 A person who contravenes a provision of section 126 or 127 is guilty of an offence and liable

(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years, or to both; or

(b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or to both.

III. BACKGROUND

[11] Toward the end of 2015, the government of Canada announced its commitment to settle 25,000 Syrian refugees by the end of February 2016 through the sponsorship of the refugees. Refugees who are outside of Canada can be sponsored to come to Canada either as Government Assisted Refugees (GAR) or through the PSR program.

[12] In the GAR program, refugees are identified by the UNHCR. The government must be willing to settle the identified refugees in Canada. If so, the government of Canada is responsible for providing financial and non-financial support for the refugees for 12 months after the refugees arrive in Canada. This program is administered through the Resettlement Assistance Program.

[13] The PSR program is a humanitarian program offered to provide protection to those in need. In the PSR program, a sponsor in Canada selects the refugee to be sponsored and the refugee must apply to come to Canada. The responsibility for providing the refugee with financial and non-financial settlement assistance or support for 12 months after the refugee arrives in Canada rests with the sponsor not the government.

[14] Within the PSR program, there are different categories of sponsors: a Sponsorship Agreement Holder (“SAH”), a Community Sponsor, a Constituent Group, and a Group of 5. The applications that form the subject matter of the offences that the accused are charged with involve sponsorship either by a SAH or a Community Sponsor.

[15] A SAH is an organization that has trusted status with the IRCC. The organization must apply to be a SAH. Once approved, it enters into an agreement with the IRCC. Once approved, it does not need to demonstrate for each sponsorship application that it has financial capacity to support the refugees who are the subject of that application. The processing time is faster when the refugee is being sponsored by a SAH.

[16] A Community Sponsor is also an organization. It can be incorporated or unincorporated, for example a business or a church group. When a Community Sponsor seeks to sponsor a refugee, it must demonstrate with every sponsorship application it submits that it has the financial and non-financial capacity to provide settlement support and assistance for each refugee it sponsors.

[17] For counts 1 to 4, the sponsorship applications for Mr. Kara Ali, Mr. R. Amayri, Mr. Jourieh, and Mr. A. Amairi, were submitted by a Community Sponsor. 789 Canada was that Community Sponsor. Mr. Qita is the director of 789 Canada. Mr. Qita’s spouse (Ms. Loubani) was the co-sponsor for these applications.

[18] For counts 5 to 9, the sponsorship applications for Obiada Aswad, Orwa Aswad, Mr. Tanish, Ms. Eisa, and Mr. Salem were submitted by a SAH. The SAH was Humanity First Canada (“Humanity First”). Mr. Qita was a co-sponsor for these five sponsorship applications.

[19] All the refugee applicants whose applications form the basis of the charges on the Indictment are Syrians and they were living outside of Syria at the time they made their decision to come to Canada. They gave similar evidence that they were working outside Syria on temporary work authorizations in the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) and in the case of Mr. Salem, he also worked in Saudi Arabia. The refugee applicants had lived outside of Syria for years. Their ability to remain in the UAE/Saudi Arabia was dependent on their respective work permits being renewed and/or not being unexpectedly cancelled. A common sentiment that was expressed is that they could not return to Syria due to the conflict in Syria.

[20] The principal refugee applicant for each refugee family met with Mr. Qita in the UAE or in Mr. Salem’s case, in Saudi Arabia. Mr. Qita provided information about the Canadian government’s sponsorship program for Syrian refugees. All of the refugee applicants were interested in being sponsored to come to Canada under the sponsorship program which was being offered to Syrian refugees.

[21] Mr. Qita’s immigration company, Explore Canada, was retained by each principal refugee applicant to prepare and file their families’ immigration applications to come to Canada.

(1) Retainer Agreements

[22] Each principal refugee applicant signed a Retainer Agreement with Explore Canada. The Retainer Agreement identified as Wissam (Sam) Qita as the consultant.

[23] The Retainer Agreements set out the consultant’s responsibilities and commitment:

CONSULTANT Responsibilities and Commitment

The CONSULTANT hereby agrees to advise and represent the CLIENT in immigration application and proceedings for the following Out-of-Country Refugee Protection program.

The CONSULTANT WILL:

• Complete assessment of CLIENT qualifications upon receipt of documents, and confirm evaluation

• Coordinate and review applications package

• Provide the CLIENT with a checklist of information and documents required in support of application

• Prepare and forward the Immigration application within the proper delays

• Monitor CLIENT application through the immigration process in order to facilitate the issuance of the temporary or permanent resident visa within the proper delays

• Consult with the CLIENT when decision has to be taken

[24] The Retainer Agreement included terms of payment, as set out in paragraph 3 of the agreement:

Honorarium and Payment

The CLIENT agrees to pay the CONSULTANT with an honorarium in the amount of $[______] CAD.

The CLIENT will be billed by the hour at a rate of $200/hour. Payments will be as follows and include [sic] all fees for sending documents by the CONSULTANT to the official authorities, phone calls and email consultations. Payments may be done by cheque, bank draft/transfer, or by electronic transfer to the consultant's client account.

$[_____] at the signature of this agreement for meetings, evaluation, assessment of documents, administrative work to open CLIENT’s file;

$[_____] for application preparation and filing to proper authorities when file is being submitted;

[_____] for the follow up with authorities; coordination of medical instructions, monitor, updating and following up with the CLIENT. Payment is due upon receipt of file number from CIC.

Government application processing fees and other disbursements are the responsibility of the CLIENT, and are not included in this honorarium. They are to be paid upon submission of the completed application. Government fees may change without notice. Taxes are applicable if CLIENT resides in Canada.

[25] The specific amounts that had to be paid varied for each refugee family. The Retainer Agreements can be summarized as follows (unless otherwise indicated, the amounts are in Canadian dollars):

(a) Mr. Kara Ali – $15,000 in two installments of $7,500;

(b) Mr. R. Amayri – US$10,000 in five installments of $2,000;

(d) Mr. A. Amairi – $5,000 in three installments of $1,000 and one installment of $2,000;

(e) Obiada Aswad – $12,000 in two installments of $6,000;

(f) Orwa Aswad – $13,500 in two installments of $6,000 and $7,500;

(g) Mr. Tanish and Ms. Eisa – $25,000 in two installments of $10,260 and $14,740; and

(h) Mr. Salem – US$6,000 in two installments of $3,000.

(2) Documents Submitted

[26] Regardless of whether they were being sponsored by 798 Canada or Humanity First (with Mr. Qita as a co-sponsor), all refugee submitted: a Generic Application, Schedule A (Background/Declaration, Schedule 2 (Refugees Outside Canada) and a Use of Representation form.

[27] The principal refugee applicant for each family provided information to Mr. Qita for the completion of the Generic Application, Schedule A and Schedule 2. The documents were sent by email or courier to the principal refugee applicant for review and signature.

(3) Use of Representation Form

[28] When there is a representative, a Used of Representation Form must be submitted with the application. If it is not submitted, the application is not complete, and the refugee’s application could be rejected. Each immigration application indicated that Mr. Qita was the representative for each principal applicant (and their family members). The contact information provided for their representative was Explore Canada. These forms were filled out and sent to the principal applicants for their signature. They did not provide information to be included in the form.

[29] Each Use of Representative Form contains a section with a declaration from the named representative. Included in the declaration was a confirmation that all the information in Section B (information about the representative) is “truthful, complete and correct.” For each Use of Representative form submitted, Mr. Qita signed this declaration on behalf of the representative.

[30] In addition to providing the name and contact information for the representative, Section B of the Use of Representative forms requires that the following information be provided: the nature of the relationship between the representative and the applicant and whether the representative is being compensated. There were several options to choose from.

[31] For an uncompensated representative, the options for the nature of the relationship were:

(i) family member or friend;

(ii) member of a non-governmental or religious organization;

(iii) member of the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC), a Canadian provincial or territorial law society, or the Chambre des notaires du Québec; or

(iv) other

[32] For a representative who is or will be compensated, the options are a member in good standing of:

(i) the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC)

(ii) a Canadian provincial or territorial law society

(iii) the Chambre des notaires du Québec

[33] The membership ID number is required information and for option (ii), identifying the province or territory is also required.

[34] The Use of Representative forms for Mr. Kara Ali, Mr. Jourieh, and Mr. A. Amairi, indicated that Mr. Qita was uncompensated and a member of the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC), a Canadian provincial or territorial law society, or the Chambre des notaires du Québec.

[35] For Mr. R. Amayri, Obiada Aswad, Orwa Aswad, Mr. Tanish, Ms. Eisa and Mr. Salem, the Use of Representative form indicated that Mr. Qita was uncompensated and a family member or friend.

(4) Type of Sponsorship and Documents Submitted

[36] As stated above, for Mr. Kara Ali, Mr. R. Amayri, Mr. Jourieh, and Mr. A. Amairi (whose applications are referred to counts 1, 2, 3, and 4), their sponsorship was by a Community Sponsor, 789 Canada. The following documents were required by the IRCC and submitted by the Community Sponsor: Undertaking/Application to Sponsor, Settlement Plan, and Sponsor Assessment. Further, although not required by IRCC, the Sponsorship/ Memorandum of Understanding between the Community Sponsor and co-sponsor for each refugee applicant was submitted. The co-sponsor was Ms. Loubani.

[37] However, subsequent to submitting the sponsorship application for Mr. A. Amairi, Mr. Qita withdrew as representative and cancelled the sponsorship application. The reason for this will be reviewed later in these Reasons.

[38] For Obiada Aswad, Orwa Aswad, Mr. Tanish, Ms. Eisa, and Mr. Salem (whose applications are referred to in counts 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9), the sponsor was Humanity First Canada as the SAH and Mr. Qita, in his personal capacity, was the co-sponsor. The following documents were required by the IRCC and were submitted: Undertaking/Application to Sponsor, Sponsor Assessment, and Settlement Plan.

[39] However, subsequent to the sponsorship application being submitted for Mr. Salem, Mr. Qita was removed as a co-sponsor and Humanity First sponsored Mr. Salem without a co-sponsor. The reason for this will be reviewed later in these Reasons.

IV. COUNTS 1 TO 4

(1) Undertaking to Sponsor/Application (Counts 1 to 4)

[40] The Undertaking/Applications to Sponsor includes Section G which outlines the Obligations, Consent and Declarations. The obligations of the sponsoring group to the principal applicant and all accompanying and non-accompanying family members are outlined:

• Reception – Meet the refugee upon arrival in the community

• Lodging – Provide suitable accommodation, basic furniture and other household essentials;

• Care – Food, clothing, local transportation and other basic necessities of life;

• Settlement Assistance and Support – Assist the refugees to learn an official language, seek employment, encourage and assist them to adjust to life in Canada as outlined in the Settlement Plan

I understand that, as a group member, I am jointly and severally or solidarity bound with the other group members to perform the obligations of the sponsorship undertaking and am liable with the sponsorship group for any breach of those obligations. The sponsoring group’s obligation commence upon arrival of the sponsored persons in Canada. The refugees are supported for 12 months or until they become self-sufficient.

[41] The Undertaking/Sponsorship Application includes a declaration. On behalf of 798 Canada, Mr. Qita made and signed the declaration. The Community Sponsor declared that:

▪ [the] information provided is to the best of our knowledge true, complete and accurate.

▪ We are not in default of any other sponsorship undertakings.

▪ We are not in default of any immigration loans.

▪ We have made or will make adequate arrangements in the expected community of settlement for the reception and settlement of the person(s) identified in this undertaking, as, evidenced in the Settlement Plan.

▪ We have sufficient financial resources and expertise to fulfill this undertaking.

▪ To the best of our ability, we will not knowingly or deliberately allow any individual to participate in the group’s settlement activities who may be considered a threat to the safety and security of the refugees.

We understand that any false statement or concealment of any material fact may result in, but is not limited to, the following consequences:

• Refusal to approve this or future undertakings;

• Refusal of the sponsored individual's application for permanent residence;

• Vacation of the sponsored individuals refugee status;

• Revocation of the existing sponsorship application with CIC:

• Prosecution or other enforcement action.

We understand that the sponsorship undertaking constitutes a financial obligation that could result in collection action, should there be a breach of that obligation.

(2) Settlement Plan and Financial Assessment Community Sponsors (Counts 1 to 4)

[42] This document provided information about the Community Sponsor. For example, the nature of organization, how long it has existed, how many employees, other sponsorship activities or humanitarian work undertaken in the three years prior to submitting its sponsorship application.

[43] The questions to be answered by the Community Sponsor included questions about its financial circumstances:

Is your organization financially solvent (able to manage its debt load)? What financial statements have you provided to show that your organization is solvent?

[44] The response provided was:

Yes. The corporation doesn’t have any debts – please refer to the attached bank letter of account status.

[45] This same response was given for each of the four Settlement Plans and Financial Assessments that were submitted.

[46] The letter referred to and submitted with each of the Settlement Plans and Financial Assessments was a letter from Scotiabank, dated February 24, 2016. The letter confirmed that as of close of business on February 24, 2016, 789 Canada had a business account that held $150,000.

[47] Further, on behalf of 798 Canada, Mr. Qita filed with CIC the sponsorship agreement and a letter dated February 26, 2016. The letter indicated that

a general business trust account has been opened at Scotiabank and will be used to deposit and manage the settlement funds as per the terms indicated in the sponsorship agreement. Both representatives above have been in-trusted and are required to co-sign on any withdrawal transactions to the family on a monthly basis.

A copy of this letter was submitted with each of the Settlement Plans and Financial Assessments.

[48] As part of the Settlement Plan and Financial Assessment, the Community Sponsor was also asked to provide further details on how the sponsor and co-sponsor(s) plan to share settlement responsibilities. In response, 789 Canada indicated

Please refer to the attached sponsorship agreement and undertaking. Settlement funds are already held in a general trust account and will be directed to the family on a monthly basis if and when they do arrive in Canada.

This response was given in each of the Settlement Plans and Financial Assessments that were submitted.

(3) Sponsorship Agreement/MOU (Counts 1 to 4)

[49] The Sponsorship Agreement/MOU that was referred to and incorporated in the Settlement Plan and Financial Assessment submitted by the Community Sponsor, 789 Canada, was not a document that was required by CIC. The Sponsorship Agreement/MOU outlined the obligations of the parties: the Community Sponsor and the co-sponsor’s obligations to the refugee family and the obligations as between the Community Sponsor and the co-sponsor. It was signed by Mr. Qita on behalf of 789 Canada in his capacity as Sponsor Director. Ms. Loubani, the co-sponsor, signed all of the Sponsorship Agreement/MOUs except for the one relating to Mr. A. Amairi.

[50] The Sponsorship Agreement/MOUs were submitted with each of these four applications. The primary applicant was not required to sign it, but could sign it, “if available.” The Sponsorship Agreement/MOU was signed by all of the refugee applicants referred to in counts 2 to 4. Mr. Kara Ali (count 1) did not sign the one that related to his sponsorship application.

[51] The first paragraph of the preamble of the Sponsorship Agreement/MOU states:

WHEREAS Community Sponsor is responsible for providing all necessary settlement funds for the integration of the above-mentioned Refugee Family. Community Sponsor is also responsible for the well-being of the refugees for one year from the first day of arrival to day 365. These responsibilities are described in detail herein; AND [emphasis added]

[52] The second paragraph of the preamble stipulated the amount that 789 Canada was required to deposit in its general trust account for the refugee family. For Mr. Kara Ali, Mr. A. Amayri, and Mr. Jourieh, this amount was 110% of the amount determined by IRCC which depended on the size of the refugee family. For Mr. A. Amairi, this amount was 107%.

[53] However, common to all of the Sponsorship Agreements/MOUs and included in the second paragraph of the preamble was that the sum of money as determined by IRCC would be deposited in its general trust account “by February 26, 2016 before submitting the refugee application to CIC(IRCC) for processing..”

[54] The Sponsorship Agreement/MOU contained several terms, including:

This agreement is designed to confirm that the Community Sponsor and Co-Sponsor understand their obligations and responsibilities involved in sponsoring refugees under the Law.

Term of Undertaking

The Community Sponsor and Co-Sponsor shall provide the Refugee Family essential needs and settlement assistance for a period which is either (a) a minimum of one year from the date of Refugee Family arrives in Canada, or (b) until the Refugee Family become self-sufficient without the aid of outside financial assistance (the "Sponsorship Period).

Financial Requirements: The Community Sponsor will be responsible for providing all necessary settlement funds for the settlement of the Refugee Family. The Community Sponsor shall deposit a sponsorship fund (the “Sponsorship Account”) to support the Refugee Family during the Sponsorship Period.

Release of Funds: The Sponsorship Account will be directed to the Refugee Family for their settlement The funds will be released on a monthly basis (at total liability 1/12 per month less initial costs) for their settlement The Co-Sponsor will be able to submit up to two expense claim forms each month which should be received by the Community Sponsor by the 5th of the month for the previous month's claim. Reimbursements, as applicable, will be issued within 10 business days after this date in most cases. For fixed monthly expenses, such as rent, the Community Sponsor can also pay expenses directly to the respective parties provided that the Co-Sponsor requested it and provided all relevant information required to setup direct payments. Similarly, the allowance for the Refugee Family will be deposited directly into a bank account of in their name or in the name of the Principal Refugee Applicant.

Use of Funds: In case that the funds are not needed for the Refugee Family until the end of the Sponsorship Period due to other acceptable and satisfactory settlement arrangements, or the Principal Refugee Applicants’ sponsorship application is refused, or cancelled by the Community Sponsor, IRCC (CIC), the Co-Sponsor or the Refugee Family; all unused settlement funds will be returned to the Community Sponsor and Co-Sponsor, these funds may be used for sponsorship of another the Community Sponsor and Co-Sponsor, these funds may be used for sponsorship of another refugee family.

Community Sponsor will hold the settlement funds in a separate general trust account and will maintain a balance in their books, and will provide financial statements to the CO-Sponsor upon request.

Fees: Community Sponsor does not charge any administrative fees or commissions from either the Refugee Family or Co-Sponsor. The Community Sponsor and Co-Sponsor confirm that this sponsorship & resettlement commitment is being undertaken without expectation for any monetary consideration or fee from the Refugee Family. [emphasis added]

In situations where the sponsorship application needs to be submitted to the IRCC for the Refugee Family, the Community Sponsor will not submit the sponsorship application for the above named Refugee Family until the required sponsorship funds are deposited in the Sponsorship Account. The amount of funds required for sponsorship may vary according to family size & settlement location, and as such will need to be mutually agreed. IRCC guidelines can be used as a reference in this regard.

Annexures: Annexures A and B are deemed to form and be Included as part of this Agreement:

A. Settlement Fund Deposit Receipt

B. Settlement Fund Disbursement Budget Guide

[55] The specific amount of settlement funds varied for each family. The settlement funds as indicated in the Sponsorship Agreement/MOU can be summarized as follows (all amounts are in Canadian dollars):

(a) Mr. Kara Ali – $27,000 for a family of two and the Community Sponsor will deposit $29,700 in its general trust account by February 26, 2016;

(b) Mr. R. Amayri – $29,700 for a family of five and the Community Sponsor will deposit $32,670 in its general trust account by February 26, 2016;

(c) Mr. Jourieh – $32,500 for a family of five and the Community Sponsor will deposit $35,750 in its general trust account by February 26, 2016; and

(d) Mr. A. Amairi – $29,700 for a family of five and the Community Sponsor will deposit $31,800 in its general trust account by February 26, 2010.

[56] Mr. Qita, on behalf of 798 Canada, signed the Sponsorship Agreement/MOUs on different dates. The Sponsorship Agreement/MOU relating to Mr. R. Amayri was dated February 23, 2016. The Sponsorship Agreement/MOUs relating to Mr. Kara Ali, Mr. Jourieh, and Mr. A. Amairi were dated February 25, 2016.

(4) The Applicants

(i) Mohammed Kara Ali

[57] Mr. Kara Ali left Syria in 2005 and was working in the UAE and supported his family. He was introduced to Mr. Qita through a friend, Mr. Jourieh. He met with Mr. Qita twice in the UAE. Mr. Qita told him that he was an immigration consultant and provided him with information on how he and his family could come to Canada as refugees.

[58] Mr. Kara Ali paid fees in the amount of $15,000 to Mr. Qita. This was the amount stipulated in the Retainer Agreement and was paid in three installments. He received invoices from Explore Canada for these installments. He understood that Mr. Qita would prepare and submit the immigration forms that were required for Mr. Kara Ali to come to Canada as Mr. Qita was an immigration consultant.

[59] He understood that Mr. Qita’s company, Explore Canada, would be the sponsor and that Mr. Qita was sponsoring him. Mr. Kara Ali stated that he did not learn about 789 Canada.

[60] In January or February 2016, Mr. Qita told him that he had located a sponsor, but the sponsor required that the settlement funds be deposited. Mr. Kara Ali stated that he did not want to transfer money. He stated that Mr. Qita told him that he would have to bring $30,000 with him when he came to Canada to support himself, his wife and their two children. This amount is the amount specified in the Sponsorship Agreement/MOU. Mr. Kara Ali understood from Mr. Qita that Mr. Qita was sponsoring him, but Mr. Kara Ali was responsible for covering his family’s expenses for the first year that he was in Canada.

[61] When Mr. Kara Ali and his family arrived in Canada in December 2016, Mr. Qita had arranged a hotel for them. However, Mr. Kara Ali paid for the hotel which he and his family stayed at for approximately one week. Mr. Kara Ali also rented his own apartment and paid the rent.

[62] Mr. Qita provided assistance once the family arrived in Canada. When his family was at the hotel, Mr. Qita brought them food. Mr. Qita also helped to register the children in school and to apply for health cards. Mr. Qita helped Mr. Kara Ali to rent a car which Mr. Kara Ali paid for.

[63] In addition to paying his rent, Mr. Kara Ali paid for furniture, transportation, food, internet and electricity. He relied on the savings that he had brought with him to pay these expenses.

[64] 789 Canada did not pay for any of the family’s expenses.

(ii) Radwan Amayri

[65] Mr. R. Amayri arrived in Canada on March 15, 2017. Prior to that, he lived in the UAE as a temporary resident. He had left Syria in 1997. Once his temporary residence permit expired, he would have to return to Syria but because of the war, he would not be able to go to Syria.

[66] Mr. R. Amayri learned of Mr. Qita through Mr. R. Amayri’s cousin (Mr. A. Amairi) who knew Mr. Qita’s wife. Mr. R. Amayri met with Mr. Qita in the UAE in November 2015. Mr. Qita told Mr. A. Amairi that he was a licensed immigration consultant. Mr. Qita told him about different immigration options through which Mr. R. Amayri could come to Canada. However, an obstacle for the other options was that an English test was required. Mr. Qita told Mr. R. Amayri that he was eligible for the sponsorship program. Mr. R. Amayri learned from Mr. Qita that the program being offered to Syrian refugees was faster and easier.

[67] Mr. Qita told him about two types of fees that Mr. R. Amayri would have to pay. First, was the consultant’s fee which was $10,000 (or US$8,000). Second, $32,000 was needed to cover Mr. R. Amayri’s expenses for one year.

[68] Mr. R. Amayri paid US$8,000 in four installments of US$2,000.

[69] In February 2016, Mr. Qita advised him by email that his application had been approved by his sponsor, 789 Canada. Mr. Qita asked him to sign the Sponsorship Agreement/MOU and review the Settlement Plan which he had sent to Mr. R. Amayri. Mr. Qita indicated that the sponsor would sign the agreement and that Mr. R. Amayri would receive a copy of it “before I transfer the funds to the sponsor’s trust account.” Mr. Qita also requested payment of the second installment of the retainer fees.

[70] Mr. R. Amayri stated that when he and his family arrived in Canada, he paid for all of their expenses, including rent, internet, electricity and furnishings. Mr. Qita assisted with registering the children for school, obtaining health cards, and where to buy furniture from.

[71] Mr. R. Amayri learned that 798 Canada was one of Mr. Qita’s companies but did not know that Mr. Qita and his wife had a connection to 798 Canada.

[72] With respect to the Sponsorship Agreement/MOU, Mr. R. Amayri testified that he did not pay much attention to the document as it was not an important document and he had a good relationship with Mr. Qita. He also testified that he understood that the sponsor would receive the $32,000 that he was told he needed to provide.

[73] He testified that he did not receive any money from 798 Canada.

[74] After he arrived in Canada, he learned that there was an issue with how his application had been submitted.

(iii) Ismaiel Jourieh

[75] Mr. Jourieh has been in Canada since June 19, 2017. Prior to then, he lived in the UAE and had a temporary work/residency permit.

[76] Mr. Jourieh was introduced to Mr. Qita through a friend, Mr. A. Amairi. Mr. Jourieh first spoke with Mr. Qita by Skype but met with him in the UAE in late 2015/early 2016. There were other people at this meeting: Orwa Aswad, Obiada Aswad, Mr. Kara Ali, and Mr. Tanish. Mr. Qita told them he was an immigration consultant and provided his business card.

[77] Mr. Qita and he discussed payment of Mr. Qita’s fees. The retainer fee was $15,000 and was to be paid in two installments of $7,500. Mr. Jourieh testified that he only paid Mr. Qita $4,800 as they had agreed he would get a discount for referring other clients to Mr. Qita.

[78] Mr. Qita asked him if he would be able to support himself for a year in Canada. Mr. Jourieh indicated he would be able to as he had savings.

[79] Mr. Jourieh recalled a conversation with Mr. Qita in which Mr. Qita advised him that Mr. Qita had found a sponsor, but Mr. Jourieh would have to deposit funds for the sponsorship.

[80] Mr. Jourieh testified that he never sent to Mr. Qita the amount of $32,000 or the amount set out in the Sponsorship Agreement/MOU ($35,750). He stated that when he signed the Sponsorship Agreement/MOU, Mr. Qita did not explain the details of the document to him. He did not know what 798 Canada was when he signed this agreement. He stated he was not interested in the details and would have even signed a blank document. He trusted Mr. Qita.

[81] On May 24, 2017, Mr. Jourieh received an email from Mr. Qita by which Mr. Qita indicated “immediate action” by Mr. Jourieh was required:

payment of overdue retainer fees of $2,800 CAD immediately and before arrival to Canada as agreed

transfer of settlement funds of $32,500 CAD to the Sponsor/Supporter to secure your settlement in Canada. This must be transferred before your arrival to Canada.

Failure to take action on the above will result in cancellation of your sponsorship and withdrawal from presentation. Awaiting your response before May 31, 2017 [emphasis in the original].

[82] Mr. Jourieh understood that he had to give these funds to Mr. Qita for his sponsorship and understood that Mr. Qita’s company was the sponsor. He testified that he understood that if he did not do what was requested, Mr. Qita would cancel his sponsorship application and that Mr. Jourieh would not be able to come to Canada.

[83] Following receipt of this email, Mr. Jourieh transferred $2,800 to Explore Canada. However, he advised Mr. Qita that when he came to Canada, he would bring $32,000 with him and that Mr. Qita accepted this.

[84] Mr. Jourieh testified that when he and his family arrived in Canada, he supported his family by relying on his savings. Mr. Qita initially brought them food, but Mr. Jourieh paid for the family’s expenses (for example: furniture, clothing, internet and electricity). Mr. Jourieh paid for the furnished apartment where he and his family stayed.

[85] Mr. Qita assisted with school registration for the children, obtaining health cards and dental treatment for the children. When Mr. Jourieh bought a car, Mr. Qita signed as the guarantor. Mr. Qita also told him where he could buy groceries and sometimes they would meet for lunch.

[86] Mr. Jourieh testified that he never received any money from 798 Canada.

[87] Mr. Jourieh testified that he learned after he arrived in Canada that he should not have been responsible for paying the sponsorship settlement funds.

(iv) Almuatsem Amairi

[88] At the time he testified, Mr. A. Amairi had been in Canada for approximately three years. Prior to arriving in Canada, he lived in the UAE and had a work permit. He had lived in the UAE for most of his life.

[89] He testified that he wanted to come to Canada because of the conflict in Syria. He had seen an advertisement that Canada was providing asylum to Syrian refugees. Mr. A. Amairi testified that he knew Mr. Qita’s father-in-law who provided Mr. Qita’s email address and telephone numbers.

[90] Mr. A. Amairi first spoke with Mr. Qita by telephone and was told that he could apply to come to Canada. Approximately two months later, Mr. A. Amairi and Mr. Qita met in the UAE and there were other people present, including Mr. R. Amayri (his cousin). Mr. Qita explained that there was a program available for them to apply to come to Canada as refugees. Mr. Qita asked about his ability to support his family as that would be an option was available for his family.

[91] Mr. A. Amairi was interested in his family (himself, his wife and their three children), his parents and his siblings coming to Canada. He and Mr. Qita discussed Mr. Qita’s fees. For his family, the retainer fee would be $12,000 which was later reduced to $10,000. However, his parents and siblings would have to apply separately as they were adults and the retainer fee would be $10,000 per person.

[92] On October 20, 2015, Mr. Qita emailed the Retainer Agreement which specified that Mr. A. Amairi would have to pay an honorarium of $5,000 in four instalments. However, Mr. A. Amairi testified that he did not pay Mr. Qita this amount.

[93] On January 27, 2016, Mr. Qita sent Mr. A. Amairi an email by which Mr. Qita advised

We have reached an agreement with a new sponsor organization, authorized by Canada Immigration, who is ready to receive applications but requires a deposit of the settlement funds in their trust account. They will disburse the fees on a monthly basis to your family when you arrive. These funds will only be requested once we your application is approved by the sponsor and before we submit to Immigration Canada.

Given the size of your family of 5 persons, you would be required to fund $30,000 CAD. Please let me know if you have these funds so we can submit as your application to them well. If you don’t have it right now, please let me know when you will, and I will consider to submit [sic] your application to this sponsor at that time.

Otherwise, we will continue to wait for the sponsors who don’t require such upfront deposit and only request a bank account letter of the funds, but these organizations are quite backed up and the application may be delayed in the queue.

[94] Mr. A. Amairi testified that it was his understanding that if he did not have the settlement funds ($30,000), he could wait until a sponsor who did not require a deposit was located.

[95] On or about February 26, 2016, by email from Mr. Qita, Mr. A. Amairi learned that his application had been approved by the sponsor who was identified as 798 Canada. Mr. Qita sent Mr. A. Amairi the sponsorship agreement and requested that Mr. A. Amairi sign and return it. Mr. Qita also advised that an invoice would be issued in the amount of $2,150, the amount owing for the retainer fees. Mr. A. Amairi did not know that 789 Canada was Mr. Qita’s company. He knew that Explore Canada, however, was Mr. Qita’s company.

[96] Mr. A. Amairi testified that he understood that he was responsible for expenses for his family for the first year after they arrived in Canada.

[97] Mr. A. Amairi also testified that in the UAE, sponsorship meant being sponsored by an employer and that you would have to work for the employer unless you are self-employed in which case, you must be an investor.

[98] In a subsequent email, dated February 26, 2016, Mr. Qita provided clarification that the amount of the retainer fees owing had been determined at after giving Mr. A. Amairi credit for commission for referring Mr. Jourieh and Mr. R. Amayri.

[99] Mr. A. Amairi received an invoice dated May 12, 2017 from Explore Canada with respect to outstanding retainer fees in the amount of $2,150.

[100] On May 24, 2017, Mr. A. Amairi received an email from Mr. Qita by which Mr. Qita identified two outstanding matters that required Mr. A. Amairi’s attention:

payment of overdue retainer fees of $2,150 CAD immediately and before arrival to Canada as agreed.

transfer of settlement funds of $29,700 CAD to the Sponsor/Supporter to secure your settlement in Canada. This must be transferred before your arrival to Canada.

Failure to take action on the above will result in cancellation of your sponsorship and withdrawal from representation. Awaiting your response before May 31, 2017 [emphasis in the original].

[101] In his response to the email, Mr. A. Amairi inquired if he had a choice as to where he could live in Canada as he was interested in going to Vancouver. Further, he expressed his surprise that he was being asked for payment of the retainer fees given that he had referred clients to Mr. Qita. Finally, he stated that he would not be coming to Canada without funds to support his family.

[102] On May 25, 2017, Mr. Qita replied to Mr. A. Amairi:

The retainer fees are net of all other commissions you earned for referrals and these retainer fees are now well overdue and as per our retainer agreement, we have the right to cancel the representation if this remains unpaid by the end of this month.

As for the settlement funds, the Sponsor is required to show proof of funds to the Government of Canada at the time of application, in process and at time of landing. You need to demonstrate to the Sponsor that you have the funds and transfer to Canada before your arrival. This is a MUST, otherwise your sponsorship may be cancelled.

Finally, you are obliged to reside close to your Sponsor as per the sponsorship agreement and IRCC sponsorship guidelines. Since your sponsor is in Mississauga, you will have the option to reside within 50 Km of the city within the GTA area so that the Sponsor can provide resettlement services to you upon your arrival. You may travel across Canada at your own expense but for the first year at least you must reside close to the Sponsor.

Awaiting your response on what you would like to do for the payments above.

[103] Mr. Qita sent a further email dated June 7, 2017 in which Mr Qita stated that he (Mr. Qita) needed

to be assured that you have the required funds BEFORE you get the visa. If you don’t convince me of this, then I have no choice but cancel the sponsorship even a day before you come to Canada.

I will continue to wait to get paid and to see a proof of funds you plan to transfer to Canada [emphasis added].

[104] Mr. A. Amairi responded by email on June 7, 2017 and sent a bank statement for Mr. Qita’s review as proof that he had the funds. Mr. Qita replied, also on June 7, 2017, and indicated that this was not sufficient:

This statement won’t be accepted by either myself, the Sponsor, nor the government as it appears to have been modified and not original. I need a statement printed on bank cover letter and attested by a sworn translator to be true and authentic. Sending anything else will jeopardize your application and this sponsorship.

And in addition, if you have all of these funds, can you explain why you have failed to make the payment for our retainer fees even after many reminders and repeated efforts to collect?

Please respond by Friday, June 9th before 3 PM EDT to avoid cancellation of representation and sponsorship.

[105] Ultimately, by an email dated September 11, 2017 Mr. Qita advised Mr. A. Amairi that as he had not paid the retainer fees or demonstrated that he had “the financial capability to come to Canada and support himself and family,” Mr. Qita was withdrawing from legally representing Mr. A. Amairi and he was “cancel[ing] my sponsorship as Sponsor.” The Retainer Agreement was canceled effective September 11, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. EST. Mr. A. Amairi had no further communication with Mr. Qita.

Mr. A. Amairi learned about the status of his application through the Canadian Embassy. He learned that Mr. Qita had advised that Mr. A. Amairi no longer wanted to come to Canada. Mr. A. Amairi testified that he had not asked Mr. Qita to cancel his application. Mr. A. Amairi and his family were ultimately sponsored by the government to come to Canada.

V. COUNTS 5 TO 9

[106] Humanity First is a not-for-profit charitable organization and is a SAH. Dr. Daud, its Chairman, testified that he has been a volunteer with Humanity First since 2004 when the organization started. Humanity First has several programs that it runs, including one for refugees. Other programs included food security, disaster response, global health, orphan care, community care, eye surgery, education. With the exception of one person employed at its foodbank, everyone at Humanity First is volunteer.

[107] Humanity First became involved in the sponsorship and resettlement in 2006 or 2007. By 2010, it became more regularly involved in the PSR program and in 2014, it further expanded its involvement due to the Syrian refugees.

[108] Humanity First is a SAH. In order to be approved as an SAH, it had to show that Humanity First had experience in refugee sponsorship, and that it had non-financial capacity (i.e. volunteers or people) and financial capacity to support refugees in their sponsorship and resettlement.

[109] As an SAH, Humanity First had both financial and non-financial obligations for the first year that a refugee family is in Canada. For its financial obligations, it is responsible for providing the refugee family with financial support to cover the family’s expenses for rent, food, furnishings, utilities, internet, clothing and school supplies, for example. The refugee family is provided with a portion of funds when they first arrive and then they receive a monthly allowance from the SAH. The total amount of the financial support is determined by the government guidelines and depends on the size of the family.

[110] The non-financial support starts with meeting the refugee family at the airport when they arrive in Canada, arranging accommodation, provide food and other necessities, furniture, medical needs, register for school and any other needs that arise through the year.

[111] Dr. Daud testified that Humanity First obtains funds to support the refugee family in one of two ways, either through fundraising or relying on co-sponsors. When Humanity First has a co-sponsor, it is the co-sponsor who provides the financial support. The co-sponsor gives the money to Humanity First who then provides it to the refugees. The SAH has the obligation to provide the monthly allowance whether there is a co-sponsor or not. Ultimately, it is SAH’s responsibility to financially support the refugee family even if co-sponsor disappears or refuses to do so.

[112] Dr. Daud also explained the refugee’s application is to be completed by the refugee applicant and SAH will provide assistance. The refugee applicant is responsible for providing the supporting documents. Humanity First completes the sponsorship form.

[113] Dr. Daud emphasized that no fees are charged to the refugee applicant. He stated that it is illegal to do so. Dr. Daud testified that the only fee that the SAH can charge is an administration fee and that is a fee that is charged to co-sponsor. The SAH has discretion and does not have to charge the co-sponsor with the administration fee. This administration fee covers the costs of paper, mailing, and printing. At the time of the applications that form the subject of the charges, the administrative fee was set at $50.

[114] Humanity First became involved with sponsorship and refugee resettlement of Syrian refugees in 2014. Dr. Daud explained that there was a faster processing time for Syrian refugee applications. Dr. Daud explained that as long as the applicant could show they were Syrian, they were declared prima facie to be refugees. Dr. Daud testified that one of the ways Humanity First learned about specific refugee families was being contacted by people who knew the family. For SAH sponsorships, the SAH does not need to demonstrate financial capacity for each case that it sponsors.

[115] Dr. Daud explained that when someone becomes a co-sponsor, the co-sponsor must deposit the settlement funds and sign a memorandum of understanding. The co-sponsor is required to cover refugee family’s expenses for 1 year and that 100% of the settlement funds is either given to or spent on the refugees. Dr. Daud testified that the settlement funds cannot come from the refugees and that this is explained to co-sponsors. As the SAH, Humanity First holds the settlement funds in trust and it trains co-sponsors how to provide support to the refugees. Dr. Daud stated that there are no circumstances where it is permissible to charge the refugees any fees in relation to their sponsorship application. Co-sponsors cannot take fees from refugees.

[116] Dr. Daud explained that Humanity First started using memoranda of understanding (“MOU”) and having trust accounts when it started to sponsor Syrian refugees. The reason for this is that Humanity First did not know the co-sponsors. He explained that the purpose of the MOU is that it explains the responsibilities of co-sponsor and Humanity First, including that it is the co-sponsor’s responsibility to cover the expenses for one year. The co-sponsor was required to sign the MOU and provide the required funds.

[117] Dr. Daud testified that he learned of Mr. Qita in 2016 through a volunteer (Dawood Ahmad). Mr. Qita and Mr. Ahmad exchange several emails between January 20, 2016 and February 16, 2016. These emails were subsequently forwarded to Mr. Daud in August 2016 as a result of an inquiry made by IRCC in relation to one specific refugee applicant that Humanity First was sponsoring.

[118] From a review of the emails, the issue of fees being charged to refugee applicants was raised. It appears that Mr. Qita was proposing that his immigration business (Explore Canada) act as a co-sponsor. Mr. Ahmad indicated that Humanity First preferred to deal with the refugee families directly instead of having a co-sponsor that was a business that charged fees for certain services and that Humanity First did not charge any money for sponsorships. By an email dated January 23, 2016, Mr. Qita indicated that “we don’t charge for the settlement services” and that the immigration services were done on a pro bono basis as some of the families were friends of his family and friends of friends. Mr. Qita inquired that if his IT company could be the co-sponsor if it was not possible for his immigration company to be a co-sponsor.

[119] By a response dated January 25, 2016, Mr. Ahmad advised that a MOU would be needed. The co-sponsor would be required to sign it and that it required that the co-sponsor was “not involved directly or indirectly in making profit out of these sponsorships.”

[120] On January 25, 2016, Mr. Qita subsequently inquired about the criteria to be a co-sponsor with Humanity First. Mr. Ahmad responded, blind copying Dr. Daud on the email, and indicated that the co-sponsor was responsible for the settlement of the refugees; that settlement funds needed to be deposited with Humanity First, a settlement plan was required and the refugee family must qualify for sponsorship under the CIC rules.

[121] Mr. Qita sought further clarification and asked, “Can I personally co-sponsor the families whom I am not charging any fees (i.e. representing on a pro bono basis)?” Mr. Ahmad responded in the affirmative and stated that a clause would need to be included in the MOU to ensure that there was no fee charged to the refugee applicants.

[122] Dr. Daud stated that it was very important to Humanity First that refugees were not charged any fees. Even when Humanity First provided assistance to the refugees to complete the necessary forms for their application, no fee is charged to the refugees.

[123] With respect to the source of the settlement funds, Humanity First does not ask the co-sponsor where they get the funds from except that they ask that it not come from the refugees. Humanity First asks the co-sponsor to provide the settlement funds by way of a cheque so that there was a money trail.

[124] Dr. Daud testified that before entering into the MOU, the co-sponsor must deposit settlement funds. The co-sponsor is required to deposit all of the settlement funds and cannot get funds from the refugee or the refugee’s family. Dr. Daud explained that there is a specific paragraph in the MOU (paragraph 12 as reproduced below) that the co-sponsor is making the commitment without payment from the refugee applicants. He indicated that this is both Humanity First’s position and his understanding of the government’s position.

[125] Humanity First with Mr. Qita personally as co-sponsor, sponsored the following refugee applicants: Obiada Aswad, Orwa Aswad, Obiada Aswad, Hakam Tanish, Ebtasem Eisa, and Yasser Salem. Dr. Daud stated that if he/Humanity First had known before signing the MOUs that settlement funds were coming from refugees, it would have been a concern. He reiterated that Humanity First did not want a co-sponsor or anyone to make money from this program.

[126] The Undertaking/Application to Sponsor form contains (in section G) the provisions which outline the obligations, consent and declarations of the SAH and co-sponsor. The wording of section G is the same as what has already been outlined in reference to the Undertaking/Application to Sponsor for counts 1 to 4 so I shall not repeat it here. The obligations listed are the same and the content of the declaration is the same.

[127] The Undertaking/Applications to Sponsor that were submitted for Obiada Aswad, Orwa Aswad, Mr. Tanish, Ms. Eisa, and Mr. Salem were each signed by Dr. Daud on behalf of Humanity First, the sponsor, and by Mr. Qita in his personal capacity as the co-sponsor.

(2) Settlement Plan (Counts 5 to 9)

[128] The Settlement Plan submitted in support of the applications of Obiada Aswad, Orwa Aswad, Mr. Tanish, Ms. Eisa, and Mr. Salem are different to the Settlement Plans submitted when there is a Community Sponsor because there is no financial assessment when a SAH is submitting the Settlement Plan.

[129] However, the Settlement Plan provides a detailed settlement checklist that sets out specific tasks of settlement categorized by start-up costs, monthly expenditures, settlement assistance. The checklist requires that it be set out who will be responsible to complete each of those tasks. The Settlement Plan also provides the details of how the settlement needs of the refugees would be met.

[130] In all five applications, the Settlement Plan was signed by Dr. Daud on behalf of Humanity First and Mr. Qita in his personal capacity as a co-sponsor. For all five applications, the Settlement Plan indicated that it was the co-sponsor who had the responsibility for carrying out the tasks set out in the checklist. In outlining how the settlement needs would be met, it was indicated that accommodations would be rented for the families and that “I” will furnish the accommodation and that the family would be provided with “certain funds every month to pay for rent and utilities.”

(3) Sponsorship Agreement/MOU (Counts 5 to 9)

[131] For each of the refugee families who were sponsored by Humanity First, with Mr. Qita as a co-sponsor, a sponsorship agreement was signed as between the SAH and the co-sponsor. Dr. Daud referred to this as the MOU. Each Humanity First Sponsorship Agreement/MOU referred to Humanity First as HFC and identified the name of the principal applicant and the amount of funds needed for resettlement and read:

With the family size of [] under the Private Refugee Sponsorship Program ("PSR"). The minimum amount of the funds required for this resettlement under the PSR are estimated to be: $[_____]

WHEREAS HFC is a non-profit charitable organization which intends to facilitate the immigration process of certain individuals to Canada; AND

WHEREAS HFC intends to delegate certain responsibilities required under the Immigration Act and its Regulations (the Law) concerning-the sponsorship of refugees to· Canada to the Co-Sponsor; AND

WHEREAS the Co-Sponsor understands and acknowledges the objectives and responsibilities required under the Law concerning the sponsorship of refugees to Canada; AND

WHEREAS the Co-Sponsor intends to obtain the assistance of HFC in order to sponsor the abovenamed refugee(s) to be resettled in Canada;

NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual agreement herein contained, and upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows:

This agreement is designed to confirm that the Co-Sponsor understands their obligations and responsibilities involved in sponsoring refugees under the Law.

The Co-Sponsor shall provide the Principal Refugee Applicant and their family (as applicable) (the "Sponsored Persons") essential needs and settlement assistance for a period which is either (a) a minimum of one year from the date the sponsored person(s) arrives in Canada or (b) until the Sponsored Persons become selfsufficient without the aid of outside financial assistance (the "Sponsorship Period").

Settlement Responsibilities: The Co-Sponsor agrees and confirms that they shall give assistance to the Sponsored Persons to settle during Sponsorship Period, as stipulated in the Settlement Plan and Undertaking or Application to Sponsor Forms, including:

a. Meeting the Sponsored Persons at the airport and providing them transport;

b. Providing shelter and basic household items;

c. Providing clothing;

d. Arranging for a family physician and provision of care during a medical emergency;

e. Helping to obtain necessary documents including Health Card, Social Insurance card, etc.

f. Any other needs of the Sponsored Persons as _ outlined by the CIC Sponsorship Cost Table, Financial Guidelines of the• Refugee Sponsorship Application Guide and settlement support as agreed-. to in the Settlement Plan.

The Co-Sponsor agrees that their financial obligations or other personal circumstances during the Sponsorship Period shall not absolve him/her from honouring this Agreement.

The Co-Sponsor confirms that the Sponsored Persons will not need to apply for social assistance/welfare benefits during the Sponsorship Period.

HFC agrees to:

a. Provide information and support to the Co-Sponsor with respect to the sponsorship and resettlement process; and

b. Review and submit sponsorship applications to the Federal Government, (subject to the constraints of the PSR and HFC's internal review processes

Financial Requirements: The Co-Sponsor will be responsible for providing all necessary settlement funds for the settlement of the Sponsored Persons. After the assessment is approved by the HFC, the Co-Sponsor shall deposit a sponsorship fund (the "Sponsorship Account") as determined by the Co-sponsor that may be used to support the Sponsored Persons the Sponsorship Period. A Non-Tax Deductible Receipt as proof of money received will be issued to the Co-Sponsor for the amount of funds the Co-Sponsor has donated. A Tax-Deductible receipt will be issued to the individual donor when this is an un-named (i.e. not related or known to the donors or group and not pre-determined) or a BVOR sponsorship.

Release of Funds: The Sponsorship Account will be directed to the Sponsored Persons for their settlement. The funds will be released on a monthly basis (at total liability 1/12 per month less initial costs) for their settlement. The Co-Sponsor will be able to submit up to two expense claim forms each month which should be received by HFC by the 5th of the month for the previous month's claim. Reimbursements, as applicable, will be issued within 10 business days after this date in most cases. For fixed monthly expenses, such as rent, HFC can also pay expenses directly to the respective parties provided that the Co-Sponsor requested it and provided all relevant information required to setup direct payments. Similarly, the allowance for the Sponsored Persons will be deposited directly into a bank account of in their name or in the name of the Principal Refugee Applicant.

Use of Funds: In case that the funds are not needed for the Sponsored Persons until the end of the Sponsorship Period due to other acceptable and satisfactory settlement arrangements, or the Principal Refugee Applicants' [sic] sponsorship application is refused, or cancelled by the HFC, the Co-Sponsor or the Sponsored Persons; all unused deposits will be returned to the Co-Sponsor in Canadian dollars as it is (This only applies when a Tax-Deductible receipt was NOT issued). With mutual agreement, these funds may be used for sponsorship of another refugee. In the case where a donation receipt was issued for any amount for the sponsorship or resettlement of un-named refugees, then that amount is non-refundable and will only be used for sponsorship of refugees.

HFC will hold all funds contributed on behalf of the Co-Sponsors in a separate accounting head in their books and will provide financial statements to the CoSponsor upon request.

Administrative Fees: The Co-Sponsor agrees to also pay a $50 CAD nonrefundable processing fees for each sponsorship undertaking tb be submitted. Credit card processing fees charged by the bank or processing companies are deducted before the funds are actually received by Humanity First. Humanity First does not charge any other administrative fees or commissions other than mentioned above.

The Co-Sponsor confirms that this sponsorship & resettlement commitment is being undertaken without expectation for any monetary consideration or fee to the Refugee applicant.

In situations where the sponsorship application needs to be submitted to the IRCC for the Sponsored Persons, HFC will not submit the sponsorship application for the abovenamed refugees until the required sponsorship funds are deposited in the Sponsorship Account, and administrative fees are paid. The amount of funds required for sponsorship may vary according to family size & settlement location, and as such will need to be mutually agreed. IRCC guidelines can be used as a reference in this regard.

After the estimated processing time of the visa-office abroad, if the above applicants have not arrived or have not received a decision regarding the status of their file, HFC and the Co-Sponsor will review this Agreement.

This Agreement can be changed at any time by mutual agreement in writing between HFC and the Co-Sponsor.

Legal Consequences: The Co-Sponsor hereby confirms and acknowledges that in the event of his/her failure to provide support as required in this Agreement, HFC can take legal action to recover expenses against the Sponsor and also seek legal costs from the Co-Sponsor.

Singular/Plural - Whenever a singular is used in this Agreement herein where required by context, the same shall include the plural and vice versa, and the neutral gender shall include the masculine and feminine genders.

Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario.

Annexure: Annexure A is deemed to form and be included as part of this Agreement.

[132] The specific amount of settlement funds varied for each family. The settlement funds as indicated in the Humanity First Sponsorship Agreement/MOU can be summarized as follows (all amounts are in Canadian dollars):

(a) Obiada Aswad – $36,000 for a family of six;

(b) Orwa Aswad – $35,000 for a family of five;

(d) Ms. Eisa – $12,000 for a family of one; and

(e) Mr. Salem – $24,000 for a family of two.

(4) The Applicants

(i) Obiada Aswad and Orwa Aswad

[133] Obiada Aswad and Orwa Aswad are brothers. It was Orwa Aswad who typically communicated with Mr. Qita, but emails were copied to his brother. Orwa Aswad made the arrangements to transfer funds on behalf of himself and his brother, as required. Invoices and receipts for both brothers were sent to Orwa Aswad.

[134] Obiada Aswad arrived in Canada in December 2016. Prior to that, he worked in Dubai and had a temporary work permit. He testified that his permit was cancelled, he would have to try to find another job or go to another country that would accept him given that he was a Syrian or he would have to return to Syria.

[135] Obiada Aswad first met Mr. Qita approximately one year prior to coming to Canada. The first time he met with Mr. Qita, it was at Mr. Jourieh’s home, Obiada Aswad wanted to find out more information about a program he had learned of where refugees are sponsored by organizations to come to Canada. They discussed whether Obiada Aswad and his family would be able to come to Canada and Mr. Qita told him he could come as a refugee. Obiada Aswad indicated that prior to meeting Mr. Qita, he had already decided that he wanted to come to Canada.

[136] Obiada Aswad and his brother, Orwa, met with Mr. Qita on another occasion when they signed the Retainer Agreements.

[137] Orwa Aswad arrived in Canada in March 2017. Prior to that, he lived in the UAE. He had a work permit which was linked to his employer. He stated that if his employment was terminated, he would have to find another job within one or two months, or he would have to leave the UAE. In 2015, he decided that he wanted to come to Canada. He had briefly returned to Syria to see if he could live there and then returned to the UAE.

[138] After he returned to the UAE, his brother Obiada, told him about a program through which they could come to Canada and told him about Mr. Qita. They met with Mr. Qita in December 2015. There were two other individuals present, one was Mr. Kara Ali and he was not sure of the other person’s name.

[139] Mr. Qita discussed the PSR program with them. Orwa Aswad testified that Mr. Qita told them that he would find a sponsor to sponsor them and Mr. Qita would help them to fill out the immigration forms. Obiada Aswad asked Mr. Qita if he was licensed and Mr. Qita told them that he was an immigration consultant. Mr. Qita told them that they would qualify to come to Canada as refugees under the PSR program, unless, as stated by Orwa Aswad, incorrect information was provided.

[140] Mr. Qita provided a Retainer Agreement. Orwa Aswad and Obiada Aswad signed the Retainer Agreements on the same day. They agreed with Mr. Qita to split payment of the retainer fees. Orwa Aswad paid his first half ($6,000) and his brother’s first half ($6,000) when the Retainer Agreements were signed. The money was transferred to Explore Canada which Orwa Aswad understood to be Mr. Qita and his spouse’s company. In addition to filling out the forms, they understood that Mr. Qita would find a sponsor for the families.

[141] On January 27, 2016, Orwa Aswad received an email from Mr. Qita in which Mr. Qita stated

We have reached an agreement with a new sponsor organization, authorized by Canada Immigration, who is ready to receive applications but requires a deposit of the settlement funds in their trust account. They will disburse the fees on a monthly basis to your family when you arrive.

These funds will only be requested once we your application [sic] is approved by the sponsor and before we submit to Immigration Canada.

Given the size of your family of 5 persons, you would be required to fund $30,000 CAD. Please let me know if you have these funds so we can submit your application to them as well. If you don’t have it right now, please let me know when you will, and I will consider to submit your application to this sponsor at that time.

Otherwise, we will continue to wait for the sponsor who don’t require such upfront deposit and only request a bank account letter of the funds, but these organizations are quite backed up and the application may be delayed in the queue [emphasis in the original].

[142] Orwa Aswad testified that he understood from Mr. Qita’s email that if he did not have this amount, there was no guarantee that Mr. Qita would be able to find another sponsor. He had also spoken to Mr. Qita by phone and in that conversation, Mr. Qita indicated he did not have to go with a paid sponsor, but that there was no guarantee that another sponsor could be found. Orwa Aswad understood that the amount of $30,000 was for his family’s expenses for one year. Orwa Aswad confirmed that he had the amount requested in his account and asked that his application be submitted. He did not know who the sponsor was at that time.

[143] On February 10, 2016, Orwa Aswad sent by email to Mr. Qita the signature page of the Use of Representative form which he had signed. He testified that at the time he signed it, he did not have the first page of the document.

[144] By an email dated February 16, 2016, Mr. Qita advised the brothers that their documents had been received and their applications were complete. He also indicated that “[w]e continue to wait for the sponsor approval which we should be expecting anytime now. I will let you know once approved.”

[145] By an email dated February 20, 2016, Mr. Qita advised that both brothers had been approved by the sponsor and that they had the same sponsor, Humanity First. Mr. Qita stated that the sponsorship agreements were being finalized as was the settlement plan and he would be sending this to them to sign.

[146] In this email, Mr. Qita confirmed the amounts that needed to be paid by the brothers. Obiada Aswad needed to pay $42,000. This amount represented $6,000 for the second retainer fee payment due to Explore Canada and $36,000 for settlement funds for a family of six to be transferred to the Humanity First Trust Account. Orwa Aswad needed to pay $42,480. This amount represented $7,500 for the second retainer fee payment due to Explore Canada and $34,980 for settlement funds for a family of five to be transferred to the Humanity First Trust Account. The email indicated that for each brother that “[t]he settlement funds will be reimbursed to you during your first year in Canada at a rate of $3000 per month.”

[147] Obiada Aswad testified that he borrowed money from his brother-in-law to pay the $36,000. He also stated that he understood that the organization would pay this money back to him and that the money was for his expenses for the first year in Canada. He also testified that he had a good relationship with Mr. Qita and felt he could trust him.

[148] By an email dated February 23, 2016, Orwa Aswad advised Mr. Qita that he had transferred the amounts requested for both brothers to Mr. Qita’s account.

[149] On February 25, 2016, by an email sent to both brothers, Mr. Qita confirmed that the settlement funds had been transferred to Humanity First and their applications had been submitted to IRCC. He provided receipts to confirm the transfer of the settlement funds. These receipts were in the form of a copy of bank drafts payable to Humanity First.

[150] Mr. Qita also forwarded the Humanity First Sponsorship Agreement/MOU to Obiada Aswad and Orwa Aswad. Obiada Aswad was not sure if he read the document before signing it and did not know if Mr. Qita had explained paragraph 12. Obiada Aswad stated if Mr. Qita said to sign it, he signed the document. He testified that at the time he signed it, he did not understand what co-sponsor meant.

[151] Orwa Aswad testified that he did not understand the document when he received it and that Mr. Qita did not explain it. He did not understand the difference between sponsor and co-sponsor and that in the UAE, sponsor was connected to your work visa and that you could not work for anyone other than your sponsor. He did not ask Mr. Qita to explain what a co-sponsor was as he did not want to bother Mr. Qita as he knew Mr. Qita was busy.

[152] Orwa Aswad confirmed that at the time he signed it, Mr. Qita did not explain either paragraph 7 or 12, but since signing it, Orwa Aswad learned what paragraph 12 meant. He confirmed that he did not read all of the document before he signed it but only checked for details that related to him, for example, his name and any blanks that had been filled in.

[153] By an email dated March 12, 2016, Orwa Aswad advised Mr. Qita that he had paid the balance owing for the retainer fees for himself and also for his brother.

[154] Obiada Aswad testified that when his family came to Canada, Mr. Qita had arranged accommodation for them. They stayed there for one week to 10 days and then moved to a permanent address. Obiada Aswad testified that he paid the rent at both accommodations. Mr. Qita assisted him to find furniture, but it was Obiada Aswad who paid for the furniture. Mr. Qita did provide food when they were in the temporary accommodation.

[155] Obiada Aswad testified that Mr. Qita offered a lot of things that he would not have imagined Mr. Qita would do, for example, meeting the family at the airport. Mr. Qita also assisted him with opening a bank account, obtaining health cards, a social insurance number, a driver’s licence, and also offered to review his resume.

[156] Orwa Aswad testified that when his family came to Canada, Mr. Qita did not provide clothing or furniture. Orwa Aswad had arranged for his own accommodation. Although the family had brought some winter clothing with them, he asked Mr. Qita about winter clothing. Mr. Qita told him that if he gave him money, Mr. Qita would buy winter coats and clothing for them.

[157] Mr. Qita helped him to open a bank account. He also asked Mr Qita about schools and about a job offer that he had received, which turned out not to be a legitimate offer. Orwa Aswad registered his children for school without Mr. Qita’s assistance. He had asked Mr. Qita to co-sign for a car, but Mr. Qita declined. Orwa Aswad did get a car, but he had to pay more.

[158] Orwa Aswad stated that he paid the rent for his accommodations. He was required to give a deposit equivalent to four months rent and explained that the reason for this is that newcomers to Canada do not have credit history. He paid his expenses for transportation. For the first three months in Canada, he relied on his savings and the money that had been deposited for the settlement funds. He obtained employment after 4 months of being in Canada. He stated that he received most of the settlement funds that he had advanced. However, there was a small amount, which he estimated to be between $250 and $380, which he did not receive. He asked Mr. Qita about it. Mr. Qita stated that he had contacted Humanity First about it and no action was taken. Mr. Qita told him he could, but he did not have to, consider it as a gift to Humanity First.

(ii) Hakam Tanish and Ebtasem Eisa

[159] Mr. Tanish gave evidence about his own and his mother’s applications and sponsorship. Mr. Tanish arrived in Canada in December 2016. His mother, Ms. Eisa, arrived in February 2017. Both are Syrian. Before coming to Canada, they lived in the UAE for approximately 20 years. He had a work permit and his mother lived with him and his family.

[160] Mr. Tanish had temporary status in UAE which had to be renewed every two years. He testified that he was concerned that they would have to leave because he had friends who were given 48 hours’ notice that they had to leave UAE.

[161] He met Mr. Qita in 2015 through friends in Dubai, UAE. Mr. Qita told him that there was an organization that could help to bring his family to Canada.

[162] Mr. Tanish testified that he and Mr. Qita agreed to an amount of money which he transferred. He explained that the payment was for Mr. Qita to help fill out the paperwork, find a sponsor and when they arrived in Canada, help to do what was required to help them to get established. There were two separate files – one for him, his spouse and children and one for his mother.

[163] Mr. Tanish testified that he and Mr. Qita originally agreed upon $25,000 for the retainer, but then Mr. Qita reduced it to $20,000 as reflected in the Retainer Agreement. Mr. Qita subsequently lowered it to $15,000. Mr. Tanish paid $10,000 for him and his family and $5,000 for his mother. He paid $1,500 at the time he signed the Retainer Agreement and transferred the rest in installments.

[164] Mr. Qita also told him that he had to pay money for the sponsorship and that money would remain with the organization and be returned on a monthly basis.

[165] Mr. Tanish testified that in January/early February 2016, Mr. Qita had advised that he had found a sponsor who required a deposit of funds and asked Mr. Tanish if he wanted him to look for another sponsor (one who did not require a deposit). Mr. Tanish pursued the sponsorship with the sponsor that Mr. Qita referred to.

[166] Mr. Tanish testified that Mr. Qita provided him with an account number to transfer funds to and he transferred $36,000 and two days later, he received a receipt that Mr. Qita had transferred money to Humanity First. He stated that Mr. Qita had asked him to transfer the funds to the organization’s account, but Mr. Tanish refused. He transferred the money to Mr. Qita because he knew him and did not know Humanity First.

[167] Mr. Tanish understood that once he and his family came to Canada, the sponsor would assist with things like school registration, obtaining a driver’s license and car. He testified that Mr. Qita told him that Humanity First was the co-sponsor.

[168] Mr. Tanish testified that he understood that the Humanity First Sponsorship Agreement/MOU was a contract between him, Humanity First and Mr. Qita. He further understood that payment of $36,000 would be required for his family and his mother and that he would receive $3,000 every month from the organization.

[169] With respect to paragraph 7 of the Humanity First Sponsorship Agreement/MOU which addressed the financial arrangements, Mr. Tanish testified that Mr. Qita explained that this referred to the contents of apartment (fridge, stove).

[170] Mr. Tanish confirmed that the $36,000 that he transferred to Mr. Qita was Mr. Tanish’s money and that Mr. Qita advised that this amount included the settlement funds for his mother. Mr. Qita explained that although the Humanity First Sponsorship Agreement/MOUs indicated that $36,000 was the amount required for his family and $12,600 was the amount required for his mother, he only needed to pay $36,000. The explanation given by Mr. Qita was that as Mr. Tanish’s mother would be living with his family they would be sharing their necessities.

[171] Mr. Tanish testified that after his family arrived in Canada, he received $3,000 per month. Once his mother arrived in Canada, he received another $400 per month.

[172] Mr. Qita and his wife assisted with obtaining an apartment, but Mr. Tanish paid the rent. They also assisted with school registration, buying a car and obtaining insurance, and opening bank accounts.

(iii) Yasser Salem

[173] Mr. Salem has been in Canada since July 2019. Prior to that, he lived in the UAE and had a work permit/temporary visa. In 2015, he had attempted to come to Canada through the express entry program but was not successful. He learned about Mr. Qita and the refugee program from a friend of his wife’s. He wanted to leave the UAE because he did not have permanent status and there was no guaranteed future for him there.

[174] He first spoke with Mr. Qita by telephone in 2016. He subsequently met Mr. Qita in person while he was working in Saudi Arabia. During this first meeting, Mr. Qita explained the refugee program and that it differed from the express entry program as it was not a points-based program. Mr. Qita said he would help to find a sponsor and that Mr. Salem would have to pay the settlement funds in advance and Mr. Salem would receive a monthly amount.

[175] Mr. Salem understood that the settlement funds was payment for the sponsor in order to be sponsored. Mr. Qita provided him with a Retainer Agreement. Mr. Salem confirmed he did sign it but did not remember having a copying of the signed agreement. He also confirmed that initially he thought the amount ($6,000) indicated in paragraph 3 (Honorarium) was in Canadian funds, but Mr. Qita clarified that it was in U.S. dollars. Mr. Qita included an additional clause in the Retainer Agreement at Mr. Salem’s request. This clause related to refunds as set out in paragraph 4 of the Retainer Agreement. The additional clause was that “The CLIENT reserves the right to request a refund of unearned fees at any time upon requesting application/representation cancellation.” Mr. Salem explained that he raised the issue of a refund as sponsorship was required and paying money without having a sponsor was “useless.” Mr. Salem paid the fees set out in the Retainer Agreement in two installments.

[176] Mr. Salem recalled receiving a copy of the Humanity First Sponsorship Agreement/MOU. He understood that the obligation to support him was a collaborative effort between him and the sponsor and that Mr. Qita told him that the sponsor’s financial obligation was to provide money to him on a monthly basis. He believed that he learned the name of the sponsor after he had paid the settlement funds.

[177] Mr. Salem recalled that he did not review the Humanity First Sponsorship Agreement/MOU carefully as it was an agreement between Humanity First and Mr. Qita. He was not sure if Mr. Qita explained it to him.

[178] By an email dated January 27, 2016, Mr. Qita advised Mr. Salem

We have reached an agreement with a new sponsor organization, authorized by Canada Immigration, who is ready to receive applications but requires a deposit of the settlement funds in their trust account. They will disburse the fees on a monthly basis to your family when you arrive. These funds will only be requested once we your application is approved by the sponsor and before we submit to Immigration Canada.

Given the size of your family of 2 persons, you would be required to fund $21,200 CAD. Please let me know if you have these funds so we can submit your application to them as well. If you don't have it right now, please let me know when you will, and I will consider to submit your application to this sponsor at that time.

Otherwise, we will continue to wait for the sponsors who don't require such upfront deposit and only request a bank account letter of the funds, but these

organizations are quite backed up and the application may be delayed in the queue.

Also, please tell me where your aunt lives in Ontario, provide me with a number, and tell me if she would be willing to help with the settlement services such as meeting you at the airport when you arrive, find accommodations and transportation, register for government IDs, and find employment. Of course, we can also provide these services for a fee, but Immigration Canada requires us to name a co-sponsor who can provide these services free of charge.

[179] Mr. Salem testified that he understood from this email that Mr. Qita had found a sponsor who required settlement funds to be deposited. If he waited for a sponsor who did not require the settlement funds to be deposited, his application could be delayed and Mr. Salem wanted to proceed quickly.

[180] In an email exchange, on January 27, 2016, Mr. Salem asked for clarification which Mr. Qita provided. Below, I have reproduced Mr. Salem’s questions and Mr. Qita’s responses as they were written. Mr. Qita’s responses appear in italics (in the original, Mr. Qita’s responses appeared in red):

-If I transfer the money right now, would be there any guarantee for me about this fund? and an agreement that they will disburse this money back to me on a monthly basis? what secures my right about this money? and what if my application is rejected by immigration canada, will they refund the money back? Yes, we will have an agreement signed between you and the Sponsor (and any possible co-sponsors) and there will be a full refund clause there in case of Immigration Canada refusal. There will also be language on the monthly disbursements to you. The money is safe in a trust account in the name of the accredited sponsoring organization, and these organizations are approved and regulated by Canada Immigration so your money is safe.

-If I pay the money now, does that mean that the approval of asylum by immigration Canada is a matter of time and guarantee? No payment is required now, but on conditional approval once the file assessment has been completed. No guarantee from Canada Immigration approval, but a SAH approval is significant for CIC approval because these organizations have already been approved by CIC and they do most of the due-diligence upfront.

-If I pay now, when shall I expect to travel to Canada? what is the time frame? the soonest and latest time to travel? Once the funds are received by the sponsor, the sponsorship agreement will be completed and submitted along with your documents to Immigration Canada, and they may take anywhere between 6-9 months to process before you are approved.

-Where is the location of this sponsor? do I have to stay in the same location where it is based? Yes, you do. The sponsor is national but their head office is in Toronto, Ontario. You need to live close to your co-sponsor who is supposed to help you with the settlement services. If you don’t prefer to use your aunt, then you have to reside close to me in Mississauga/Toronto area.

-For how long does this sponsor disburse the money? and does this include all my expenses in Canada like house rent, personal expenses, education if I decide to study,.....? and what happen if they spent the whole money without me finding a job? and what happen if I find a job earlier and i still have a balance with the sponsor, is the balance refundable or gone? The money is disbursed over a 12 month period, and it does include all expenses including rent, food, ..etc. They will disburse the money based on an annual budget that we set such that the total amount is disbursed on 12 payments regardless of whether you find a job or not. Any remaining balance at the end of the 12 month is yours to decide what to do with you. You can request a refund to you, or donate it to charity or to the humanitarian organization that sponsored you – totally up to you.

-Plz note that I dont want to rely on my aunt as i dont expect her to support, so I would rather to exclude her from the process. What is the fee you charge for the co-sponsership? and what does that include? No problem, your aunt doesn't have to do anything just sign the forms with the Sponsor and commit to providing the settlement services when you arrive - which I can help with as well. Regardless of whether or not you want to use her as a co- sponsor, I am available as a co-sponsor. The co-sponsor is responsible for the following services:

a. Meeting the Sponsored Persons at the airport and providing them transport;

b. Providing shelter and basic household items;

c. Providing clothing;

d. Arranging for a family physician and provision of care during a medical emergency;

e. Helping to obtain necessary documents including Health Card, Social Insurance card, etc.

[181] With respect to the settlement funds, Mr. Salem confirmed that he sent $24,000 to Mr. Qita’s bank account. He had accumulated this amount from his savings and from his family. He explained that over the years, before he met Mr. Qita, his father had given him money.

[182] Mr. Salem stated that he did not write any letters about the settlement funds ($24,000) that he advanced. He confirmed however, that Mr. Qita had asked him to sign a letter about a donation. The letter was dated August 16, 2016 and sent to him by Mr. Qita. Mr. Salem stated that he signed the letter as he did not want to slow down the process for him to come to Canada. He stated that he did not write the letter. He also stated that he had not previously seen a letter written by Mr. Qita with respect to a donation made by Mr. Salem.

[183] Mr. Salem confirmed that after he and his family arrived in Canada, he did not require assistance with transportation from the airport as he had made arrangements with friends. Mr. Salem also made his own arrangements for accommodation. He stated that he obtained his social insurance number at the airport and applied for health cards in Quebec.

[184] Mr. Salem stated that while he was waiting for his application to be processed, his wife became pregnant and they had twins. This delayed the process as his wife could not complete the required medical test until after their children were born. Mr. Salem stated that Mr. Qita assisted to add the children to the application and did not charge extra fees. Further, Mr. Salem did not have to pay more additional settlement funds for his children.

[185] Dr. Daud testified that in August 2016, IRCC raised concerns about Mr. Salem’s application because they learned that a large donation to Humanity First. The donation was in the amount of $24,000 and IRCC required clarification if the donation related to the sponsorship.

[186] In response to IRCC’s email, Dr. Daud advised that Humanity First had not received any funds from this sponsored family but that Mr. Qita was co-sponsoring the family. However, the co-sponsor, Mr. Qita, had provided Humanity First with $24,000 to hold in trust from resettlement support for this family.

[187] Dr. Daud testified that he advised IRCC that Humanity First wanted to withdraw the sponsorship application because it learned that the settlement funds came from the refugee family which was contrary to the MOU Humanity First signed with the co-sponsor. IRCC advised that it would allow Humanity First to withdraw the sponsorship.

[188] Mr. Qita appealed to Humanity First not to cancel the sponsorship and sent two letters, one from him and one from Mr. Salem. Both letters were dated August 11, 2016. The letter signed by Mr. Salem stated

I am providing this response for the above mentioned PSR application.

This is to confirm that the settlement funds for my refugee PSR application had been gathered from my family and friends, and I acknowledged during the interview that I asked for such donations to be sent to my Co-Sponsor, Wissam Oita, and Sponsor, Humanity First as a donation to help in my settlement should my application be approved; alternatively to be used at their will for the sponsorship of other Syrian refugee families. I was not forced nor asked to provide such a donation but felt such a donation wlll help the Sponsor In their Syrian resettlement efforts and may help me should my application be generously approved.

The funds were transferred to my Co-Sponsor as he was my local contact and family friend in Canada, The Co-Sponsor confirmed that he transferred 100% of this donation to Humanity First (HFC) as set In the MoU's signed mutually with HFC. No other funds or fees have been paid to my Co-Sponsor or Sponsor.

The settlement funds remain in HFC’s possession and held in trust. I hope that my application continues to be assessed without prejudice, and such a donation from family and friends doesn’t affect my chance of success.

Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions.

Thank you.

[189] In the letter from Mr. Qita, he stated:

I am providing this response for the above mentioned PSR application.

This is to confirm that the required settlement funds for the named applicant had been gathered from the refugee family and friends in their country of residence, Saudi Arabia. The funds were transferred to me as I am their local contact, friend, and Co-Sponsor here in Canada. I received the funds and transferred 100% of it to Humanity First (HFC) as set in the MoU's signed mutually with HFC. No other funds or fees have been collected from the applicant or their families either by myself or by HFC. HFC did collect $50 administrative fee from me for filing the application as set in the MoU and I believe such charge is just and fair for their kind and humanly efforts.

The settlement funds remain in HFC's possession and held in trust. I hope that my friend, the refugee applicant will not be affected or prejudiced against on the basis of any technicality, outside of the sponsor and refugee eligibility requirements.

Thank you and we greatly continue to appreciate your support and efforts.

[190] Dr. Daud sought guidance from IRCC in an email dated September 29, 2016. He advised that the co-sponsor was insisting on continuing with sponsorship. Further he advised that:

They have also assured us that no one in making any profit from this. While we would like to assist the refugee and do not wish to cause any hardship for them, at the same time, we do not want to do anything which is not right or could jeopardize our organization.

[191] Ultimately, Humanity First decided to remove Mr. Qita as a co-sponsor. Dr. Daud explained that if Mr. Qita had not been removed, the application could have been rejected which would have been a setback for Mr. Salem’s family. Dr. Daud was concerned that no other country would accept them as refugees and that they would be left in a desperate situation. Humanity First subsequently submitted a new sponsorship undertaking, without a co-sponsor.

VI. COUNTS 10 TO 14

(i) EMAIL – JUNE 18, 2016 – COUNTS 10 - 14

[192] On June 18, 2016, Mr. Qita sent an email to: Radwan Amayri, Almuatsem Amairi, Orwa Aswad, Obiada Aswad, and Hakam Tanish. The subject line was “Interview Day”. The email stated:

Salam 3alekoum [sic],

Interview day is here. I am sending you to wish you good luck and remind you of few things:

Don't forget to be there early 15-30 min before the appointment. Leave lots of time to get there and relax before the interview.

Dress to the event, not too casual and not too tooo dressy.

Remember to bring in an interpreter if you need. No one will be allowed to interpret for their spouses/other dependents.

Remember to give everyone the chance to answer questions. Coordinate this with you family.

Don't forget to take all of your ORIGINAL documents that you submitted to me and these requested in the letter you receveived [sic] from the embassy, including military book, updated forms as requested, police certificates if you have new ones, and 4 pictures for each (with the name, DOB, date taken written on the back of each).

If asked about the source of your wealth, be honest.

If asked if you have paid me any fees, say No since that was the requirement of the sponsoring organization that I matched you with.

If asked if you paid anything for your settlement fund, you can say Yes paid to the sponsor and held in trust.

If asked if you would like to return to UAE once you go to Canada, say NO. And if they ask if you will be cancelling your work visa in UAE, say YES.

If asked how much money you will be bringing with you to Canada, be honest and realistic. If you say you are going to open a business then you need to bring in enough money to do so. Be honest!

Overall, be honest in the interview, answer to the question, not too much and not too general/little - just to the point. These officers they can tell who is not been truthful and that wouldn't be too good. You are being invited because they tentatively approved you, don't mess it up and change this. Look professional, answer professionally, and if you notice the interpreter is not translating properly stop him/her and correct. THIS IS YOUR INTERVIEW and YOUR FUTURE.

Good luck and please give me a call tomorrow after the interview to let me know how it went.

Regards,

Sam Qita, RCIC, MBA

Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant (ICCRC# 511653) Explore Canada Immigration Services, Inc.

samgita@gmail.com I info@explorecanadaimmigration.ca www.ExploreCanadalmmigration.ca I facebook.com/ExploreCanadalmmigration

CA +1-647-678-1050 I Skype: samqita

VII. THE RECIPIENTS OF THE EMAIL

[193] Mr. R. Amayri stated that before his interview at the Canadian Embassy, Mr. Qita provided information about how the interview would proceed. In terms of the email of June 18, 2016, Mr. R. Amayri stated that he understood Mr. Qita to be telling him to say that no money had been paid to the sponsor in order to be sponsored. Mr. R. Amayri was not sure what Mr. Qita meant in terms of what response to give if he was asked if he paid anything for his settlement fund.

[194] When asked about this email, Mr. A. Amairi stated that his understanding from Mr. Qita was that if he was asked if he had paid money to Mr. Qita, Mr. A. Amairi should say that he did not pay money. Further if he was asked if he paid money to the sponsor, he should say that he had paid money to the sponsor.

[195] Orwa Aswad testified that he was confused by this email. He understood from the email that Mr. Qita was telling him to say that he had not paid Mr. Qita any fees and that Orwa Aswad had only paid the settlement funds. Orwa Aswad also testified that he had also spoken to Mr. Qita in preparation for the interview either by phone or Skype. During that conversation, Mr. Qita told him that he should not say that he had paid anything to Mr. Qita for his immigration application but that it was okay to say that he had paid the settlement funds. Orwa Aswad stated that at the time of this conversation, he did not know that Mr. Qita was his co-sponsor.

[196] Orwa Aswad testified that neither he nor his brother wanted to lie and that Mr. Qita had told them that there was no need to lie. At the interview, he was not asked about payments to Mr. Qita. He was only asked about settlement funds at the interview and not asked about money paid to Mr. Qita. He stated that it was his money that was used to pay for the settlement funds and that it was paid to Humanity First.

[197] Obiada Aswad agreed that prior to the interview at the Canadian Embassy, Mr. Qita had told him and his brother to be honest with the interviewer. He did not deny receiving the email. He indicated that he found it to be confusing as he did not know what questions he was to answer no. He indicated that he asked others for advice.

[198] Mr. Tanish testified that he remembered having a video chat with Mr. Qita in preparation for his interview. He did not remember receiving this email but confirmed that it was his email address.

[199] Mr. Salem testified that he had spoken with Mr. Qita prior to his interview at the Canadian Embassy. Mr. Qita outlined what type of questions to expect and told him to tell the truth. Mr. Salem did not remember exactly what he was asked at the interview. He was asked questions about Syria and whether he was involved with parties to either side of the conflict. He did not remember being asked questions at the interview about paying money. However, subsequently after a question arose about the money he advanced ($24,000), he remembered telling the Canadian Embassy that this amount was like a donation.

VIII. LEGAL PRINCIPLES – Directed Verdict

[200] The test on a motion for directed verdict is the same as the test applied at a preliminary hearing where the judge must decide if there is sufficient evidence to commit an accused for trial, that is “whether or not there is any evidence upon which a reasonable jury properly instructed could return a verdict of guilty”: see United States v. Shephard (1976), 1976 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1977 2 S.C.R. 1067 (S.C.C.), at p. 1080; R. v. Arcuri, 2001 SCC 54, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 828, at para. 21; R. v. Sazant, 2004 SCC 77, [2004] S.C.R. 635 (S.C.C.), at para. 16.

[201] The sufficiency of the evidence must be assessed in reference to the ultimate issue of guilt for which the Crown bears the persuasive and evidential burdens. The case against the accused cannot go to the jury unless there is evidence in the record upon which a properly instructed jury could rationally conclude that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt: see R. v. Charemski, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 679, (S.C.C), at paras. 23, 33, and 35, McLachlin J. dissenting on other grounds; R. c. Fontaine, 2004 SCC 27, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 702, at paras. 50 and 53.

[202] In assessing the adequacy of the evidence, the judge hearing a motion for directed verdict may not to assess the credibility or the reliability of the evidence, as that function is exclusively reserved to the jury: R. v. Deschamplain, 2004 SCC 76, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 601 (S.C.C.), at para. 15; Sazant, at para. 18.

[203] As set out in Arcuri (at para. 23), when there is circumstantial evidence, there are additional considerations for the motions judge:

The judge's task is somewhat more complicated where the Crown has not presented direct evidence as to every element of the offence. The question then becomes whether the remaining elements of the offence -- that is, those elements as to which the Crown has not advanced direct evidence -- may reasonably be inferred from the circumstantial evidence. Answering this question inevitably requires the judge to engage in a limited weighing of the evidence because, with circumstantial evidence, there is, by definition, an inferential gap between the evidence and the matter to be established -- that is, an inferential gap beyond the question of whether the evidence should be believed...The judge must therefore weigh the evidence, in the sense of assessing whether it is reasonably capable of supporting the inferences that the Crown asks the jury to draw. This weighing, however, is limited. The judge does not ask whether she herself would conclude that the accused is guilty. Nor does the judge draw factual inferences or assess credibility. The judge asks only whether the evidence, if believed, could reasonably support an inference of guilt.

[204] Where more than one inference can be drawn from the evidence, the motions judge must only consider the inferences that favour the Crown: Sazant, at para. 18.

[205] Further, as stated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Patterson, 2018 ONCA 774, at para. 11:

…Intent is frequently proven by inferences drawn from the totality of the circumstances. As the trial judge pointed out, the traditional test on a motion for a directed verdict is whether there is any evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, may convict: United States of America v. Shephard, 1976 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067, at p. 1080. The Crown was not required to demonstrate that the inference sought was a likely or probable inference arising from the evidence, let alone that it was the only available inference. To leave the count with the jury, it was enough that it was a reasonable inference consistent with guilt.

VIII. ANALYSIS

[206] The Crown did not allege that any of the refugee applicants made a misrepresentation or withheld material facts relating to a relevant matter that induced or could have induced an error in the administration of IRPA. The Crown’s theory of the case was that the accused, who put themselves forward either as a sponsor or a co-sponsor, who made the misrepresentation or withheld material facts relating to a relevant matter that induced or could have induced an error in the administration of IRPA and that Mr. Qita also counselled five refugee applicants to make a misrepresentation.

[207] The Crown’s case centred on the eligibility to be a sponsor and the undertaking that must be given by the sponsor. The requirements to be a sponsor and enter into a sponsorship agreement are set out in the IRPA Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (“Regulations”). The relevant portions of ss. 152 to 154 of the Regulations are[^2]:

Sponsorship agreements

152 (1) The Minister may enter into a sponsorship agreement with a sponsor for the purpose of facilitating the processing of sponsorship applications.

Contents of agreement

(2) A sponsorship agreement shall include provisions relating to

(a) settlement plans;

(b) financial requirements;

(c) assistance to be provided by the Department;

(d) the standard of conduct expected of the sponsor;

(e) reporting requirements; and

(f) the grounds for suspending or cancelling the agreement

153 (1) In order to sponsor a foreign national and their family members who are members of a class prescribed by Division 1, a sponsor

(a) must reside or have representatives in the expected community of settlement;

(b) must make a sponsorship application that includes a settlement plan, an undertaking and, if the sponsor has not entered into a sponsorship agreement with the Minister, a document issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or a foreign state certifying the status of the foreign national as a refugee under the rules applicable to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or the applicable laws of the foreign state, as the case may be; and

(c) must not be — or include — an individual, a corporation or an unincorporated organization or association that was a party to a sponsorship in which they defaulted on an undertaking and remain in default.

Undertaking

153 (2) The undertaking referred to in paragraph (1)(b) shall be signed by each party to the sponsorship.

153 (3) All parties to the undertaking are jointly and severally or solidarily liable.

[208] If the requirements are met, then the officer must approve the sponsorship application, as set out in section 154(1):

Approval of application

154 (1) An officer shall approve an application referred to in paragraph 153(1)(b) if, on the basis of the documentation submitted with the application, the officer determines that

(a) the sponsor has the financial resources to fulfil the settlement plan for the duration of the undertaking, unless subsection 157(1) applies; and

(b) the sponsor has made adequate arrangements in anticipation of the arrival of the foreign national and their family members in the expected community of settlement.

[209] Subsections 154(2) and (3) provide that the undertaking is for a duration of one year, although the officer has discretion to require that the undertaking be for more than one year but no longer than three years. For all of the sponsorship applications in this case, the undertakings were for a duration of one year.

[210] In the event that a sponsor no longer meets the requirements to be a sponsor, the Regulations provide that the approval must be revoked:

Revoking approval

155 An officer shall revoke an approval given in respect of an application under section 154 if the officer determines that the sponsor no longer meets the requirements of paragraph 154(1)(a) or (b) or is ineligible under subsection 156(1).

[211] The Crown’s theory is that the misrepresentation centred on the demonstration that the accused had the financial resources to fulfil the commitment made for the settlement plan for the duration of the undertaking.

[212] In determining this motion for a directed verdict, I am mindful of the applicable principles of statutory interpretation. A contextual approach must be taken as stated in Tran v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2017 SCC 50, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 289, at para. 23:

23 The modern principle of statutory interpretation is that "the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament" (E. A. Driedger, Construction of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983), at p. 87).

[213] In R. v. Codina, 2017 ONSC 748, Molloy J. explained at paras. 15 and 16:

15 The modern rule of statutory interpretation is that "the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense, harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament." The Supreme Court of Canada has consistently applied this principle and noted in BellExpressVu that "in the federal legislative context, this Court's preferred approach is buttressed by s. 12 of the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, which provides that every enactment "is deemed remedial, and shall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects."

16 These principles of interpretation have been applied in numerous cases arising under immigration legislation. The Supreme Court has held that context is an essential consideration in interpreting provisions of immigration laws and that it is relevant to take into account the legislative history of the particular provision in question, as well as its place in the overall scheme of the Act, the object of the legislation, and Parliament's intention in enacting both the provision in question and the Act as a whole. [footnotes omitted]

[214] Following her approach, the starting point is to review section 3 of IRPA which sets out its objectives and application. The objectives can be characterized as the overall or general objectives and the objectives specific to refugees.

[215] The overall objectives of IRPA, as set out in subsection 3(1) are:

Objectives — immigration

3 (1) The objectives of this Act with respect to immigration are

(a) to permit Canada to pursue the maximum social, cultural and economic benefits of immigration;

(b) to enrich and strengthen the social and cultural fabric of Canadian society, while respecting the federal, bilingual and multicultural character of Canada;

(b.1) to support and assist the development of minority official languages communities in Canada;

(c) to support the development of a strong and prosperous Canadian economy, in which the benefits of immigration are shared across all regions of Canada;

(d) to see that families are reunited in Canada;

(e) to promote the successful integration of permanent residents into Canada, while recognizing that integration involves mutual obligations for new immigrants and Canadian society;

(f) to support, by means of consistent standards and prompt processing, the attainment of immigration goals established by the Government of Canada in consultation with the provinces;

(g) to facilitate the entry of visitors, students and temporary workers for purposes such as trade, commerce, tourism, international understanding and cultural, educational and scientific activities;

(h) to protect public health and safety and to maintain the security of Canadian society;

(i) to promote international justice and security by fostering respect for human rights and by denying access to Canadian territory to persons who are criminals or security risks; and

(j) to work in cooperation with the provinces to secure better recognition of the foreign credentials of permanent residents and their more rapid integration into society.

[216] The objectives of IRPA specific to refugees are set out in subsection 3(2):

(2) The objectives of this Act with respect to refugees are

(a) to recognize that the refugee program is in the first instance about saving lives and offering protection to the displaced and persecuted;

(b) to fulfil Canada’s international legal obligations with respect to refugees and affirm Canada’s commitment to international efforts to provide assistance to those in need of resettlement;

(c) to grant, as a fundamental expression of Canada’s humanitarian ideals, fair consideration to those who come to Canada claiming persecution;

(d) to offer safe haven to persons with a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group, as well as those at risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment;

(e) to establish fair and efficient procedures that will maintain the integrity of the Canadian refugee protection system, while upholding Canada’s respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all human beings;

(f) to support the self-sufficiency and the social and economic well-being of refugees by facilitating reunification with their family members in Canada;

(g) to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to maintain the security of Canadian society; and

(h) to promote international justice and security by denying access to Canadian territory to persons, including refugee claimants, who are security risks or serious criminals.

[217] The application of IRPA is addressed in subsection 3(3):

(3) This Act is to be construed and applied in a manner that

(a) furthers the domestic and international interests of Canada;

(b) promotes accountability and transparency by enhancing public awareness of immigration and refugee programs;

(c) facilitates cooperation between the Government of Canada, provincial governments, foreign states, international organizations and non-governmental organizations;

(d) ensures that decisions taken under this Act are consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including its principles of equality and freedom from discrimination and of the equality of English and French as the official languages of Canada;

(e) supports the commitment of the Government of Canada to enhance the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada; and

(f) complies with international human rights instruments to which Canada is signatory.

[218] There are two other important considerations that must be kept in mind. First, as stated by Côté J. in Tran, at para. 31, statutory interpretation cannot lead to absurd consequences:

31 Finally, my interpretation avoids absurd results. In Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), 1998 CanLII 837 (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, at para. 27, Justice Iacobucci explained the presumption that the legislature does not intend absurd consequences:

It is a well established principle of statutory interpretation that the legislature does not intend to produce absurd consequences. According to Côté [P.-A. Côté, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd ed. 1991)], an interpretation can be considered absurd if it leads to ridiculous or frivolous consequences, if it is extremely unreasonable or inequitable, if it is illogical or incoherent, or if it is incompatible with other provisions or with the object of the legislative enactment (at pp. 378-80). Sullivan echoes these comments noting that a label of absurdity can be attached to interpretations which defeat the purpose of a statute or render some aspect of it pointless or futile ([R. Sullivan, Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (3rd ed. 1994)], at p. 88).

[219] Second, an error in the administration of IRPA does not need to occur as a result of a misrepresentation. It is sufficient that there was the possibility that an error could occur: Geng v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2017] F.C.J. No. 1245, at para. 33.)

[220] Both the defence and Crown rely on Codina, in which Molloy J. examines the phrases “material facts with respect to a relevant matter” and “induces or could induce an error” in the context of section 126 and subsection 127(a). As set out above, both these sections use the phrase “relating to a relevant matter.” In my view, the phrases “with respect to” and “relating to” are interchangeable.

[221] With respect to the phrase “material facts with respect to a relevant matter” Molloy J. states at paras. 82 to 84:

82 It is not every misrepresentation that is objectionable, but only those that are about a "material fact" with respect to a "relevant matter." The Supreme Court of Canada held in Sharbern Holdings Inc. v. Vancouver Airport Centre that materiality is a question of mixed fact and law. In discussing what would be a material fact, Rothstein J. noted in that case that it is not necessary that the fact would have changed the decision, but merely "that there was a substantial likelihood it would have assumed actual significance in a reasonable [decision-maker's] deliberations."

83 That same test has been applied in the immigration context. In Sayedi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), Tremblay-Lamer held that:

I agree with the respondent that to be material, a misrepresentation need not be decisive or determinative. It will be material if it is important enough to affect the process. The False Document was thus clearly material because the application could not have been processed without it. The fact that the misrepresentation was caught before the final assessment of the application does not assist the applicants. The materiality analysis is not limited to a particular point in time in the processing of the application – the fact that the principal applicant had submitted more recent language test results does not render the earlier misrepresentation immaterial. Such a result would reflect a narrow understanding of materiality that is contrary to the wording and purpose of section 40(1) (a) of the Act. The False Document was submitted and it was material.

84 The distinction between what is a "material" fact and a "relevant" matter is less apparent. I am not aware of any case authority dealing directly on the issue. However, Immigration Canada provided a useful explanation in its Operations Manual, which was an Exhibit at trial, and which I provided to the jury in my charge as follows:

The Immigration Canada Operations Manual contains a useful summary of the difference between relevancy and materiality (Ex. 95, p. 33). It states:

What is relevant is a broader concept than what is material.

All material factors will be relevant. However, what is relevant may not always prove to be material:

Information requested from applicants will be considered relevant, otherwise this information would not be requested; but,

This relevant information will not always affect the process undertaken by an officer or the final decision. Only when it affects the process undertaken, or the final decision, does it become material.

85 Because materiality is ultimately a question for the jury and is a mixed question of fact and law, evidence was called by both parties as to what would be material in the context of the immigration programs at issue. I then instructed the jury on what would make something "material" or "relevant" and left the ultimate question to be decided by them. [endnotes omitted]

[222] The Retainer Agreements signed by the refugee applicants each referred to a payment of fees for the preparation and submission of their respective immigration applications under the PSR program. The Retainer Agreements specified an hourly rate and that the honorarium did not include applicable processing fees and disbursements. The fees that were paid or were payable to Explore Canada, as set out in the Retainer Agreement, benefitted Mr. Qita as Explore Canada was his business.

[223] Regardless of whether 798 Canada or Humanity First was the sponsor, all the invoices for retainer fees and settlement funds were invoiced through Explore Canada. All payments were received through Explore Canada. All reminders and receipts for payments submitted came from Explore Canada.

[224] The Use of Representative forms all indicated that the representative was uncompensated. The Retainer Agreements, however, set out how the representative was to be compensated. Some forms indicated that Mr. Qita was a friend or family. Others indicated that he was member of the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC), a Canadian provincial or territorial law society, or the Chambre des notaires du Québec. The refugee applicants relied on Mr. Qita to prepare and submit their applications. Mr. Qita signed the declaration on each of the forms confirming that the information provided was “truthful, complete and correct.” The Use of Representative form included a warning that it was a serious offence to give false or misleading information on the form.

[225] Regardless of whether 798 Canada or Humanity First was the sponsor, financial and non-financial support must be demonstrated before the undertaking can be approved. Once an undertaking has been approved, it is mandatory for an officer to revoke it if the officer learns that a sponsor no longer meets the requirements to be a sponsor as set out in s. 155 of the Regulations:

Revoking approval

155 An officer shall revoke an approval given in respect of an application under section 154 if the officer determines that the sponsor no longer meets the requirements of paragraph 154(1)(a) or (b) or is ineligible under subsection 156(1).

[226] The Crown submitted that if a sponsor did not properly disclose its financial capacity or a change in the financial capacity upon which the undertaking was approved, then an error in the administration of IRPA could occur. An error could occur if the information that was not disclosed could have prevented approval in the first place. An error could have occurred if the change in the sponsor’s financial capacity would result in the sponsor no longer meeting the requirements to be a sponsor.

[227] Regardless of whether 798 Canada or Humanity First was the sponsor, the responsibility to provide the necessary settlement funds fell to the refugee applicants. With the exception of Mr. A. Amairi whose application was ultimately cancelled by Mr. Qita, all of the refugee applicants advanced settlement funds to Mr. Qita or stated that they would bring the settlement funds with them upon being informed by Mr. Qita that a sponsor had been located but the sponsor required a deposit of the settlement funds. The refugee applicants indicated that they intended to be self-sufficient.

Counts 1 to 4

[228] The Sponsorship Agreement/MOU signed by Mr. Qita on behalf of 798 Canada indicated at para. 7 that it was the Community Sponsor who was responsible for providing all of the necessary settlement funds and that the funds had to be deposited by February 26, 2016. This Sponsorship Agreement/MOU was submitted to IRCC. It was referred to in the Settlement Plan and Financial Assessment of the Community Sponsor. Letters from Scotiabank were submitted with each Settlement Plan. These letters indicated that as of February 24, 2016, 789 Canada had $150,000 in its business account. 789 Canada did not advise IRCC that the bank account was closed in May 2016 which was prior to any of the refugee applicants arriving in Canada.

[229] The Sponsorship Agreement/MOU also indicated at para. 11 that no fees were collected from the refugees and that no monetary consideration was involved in the sponsorship agreement. However, through Explore Canada, the refugees were paying Mr. Qita fees to prepare and submit their immigration applications. In Mr. A. Amairi’s case, he did not make any payments to Explore Canada, however, as he referred clients to Mr. Qita, there was a reduction in the retainer fees that were to be paid.

[230] In the Undertaking/Application to Sponsor forms submitted to IRCC, 798 Canada declared that it had sufficient financial resources to fulfill the undertaking, declared that the information provided was true, complete and accurate and that it understood that there were consequences for making false statements or concealing any material fact. Mr. Qita signed this declaration on behalf of 798 Canada. IRCC was not informed that the refugee applicants were advancing their own settlement funds. The refugees’ applications for sponsorship were determined based on the content of the forms submitted.

[231] Keeping in mind the importance of context of the objectives for IRPA, there are competing inferences that could be drawn. One inference that could be drawn was that as the refugee applicants stated that they wanted to be self-sufficient and had their own funds available to them, it was not necessary for the Community Sponsor to provide the settlement funds.

[232] However, another inference that could be drawn was that the Community Sponsor did not have the financial capacity to fulfill its undertaking and the Settlement Plan. Further, by transferring the obligation to the refugee applicants and conveying to them that it was their obligation to pay to provide their settlement funds, 798 Canada and Mr. Qita never intended to meet this obligation.

[233] The evidence called by the Crown was reasonably capable of supporting inferences that favour the Crown. At this stage, I cannot assess the credibility or reliability of the evidence and where there is more than one possible inference, I must draw the inferences that favour the Crown. Whether the source of settlement funds was material to the Community Sponsor’s capacity to fulfill the undertaking and Settlement Plan that it submitted is a question of mixed fact and law and is for the jury to determine.

[234] With respect to counts 1 to 4, I found that the Crown had demonstrated that there were reasonable inferences consistent with guilt. It is not up to me as the motions judge to determine whether those inferences should be drawn. It is up to the jury to make that determination.

[235] I am satisfied that a reasonable jury properly instructed could return a verdict of guilty. Therefore, for counts 1 to 4, the motion for directed verdict must be dismissed.

Counts 5 to 9

[236] Mr. Qita approached Humanity First to be a co-sponsor. Humanity First was a trusted sponsor as it held the status of being a SAH. It did not need to demonstrate financial capacity for each refugee that it wanted to sponsor.

[237] The Humanity First Sponsorship Agreement/MOU stipulated at paragraph 7 that it was the responsibility of the co-sponsor, Mr. Qita, to provide all of the necessary settlement funds for the refugee applicants.

[238] The Humanity First Sponsorship Agreement/MOU also indicated that no fees were collected from the refugees and that no monetary consideration was involved in the sponsorship agreement (para. 12). Through Explore Canada, the refugees paid Mr. Qita fees to prepare and submit their immigration applications. Mr. Qita had indicated to Humanity First that the immigration services that were being provided were provided on a pro bono basis.

[239] The Undertakings/Applications to Sponsor and Settlement Plans that were submitted by Humanity First as the SAH. Mr. Qita signed these documents as co-sponsor. These documents were submitted on the basis that the co-sponsor would be providing the financial and non-financial settlement support as set out in the Humanity First Sponsorship Agreement/MOU. Humanity First relied on this Sponsorship Agreement/MOU in proceeding with its sponsorship of these refugee applicants, which included submitting the Undertaking/Application to Sponsor forms and the Settlement Plan forms. The Settlement Plan forms indicated that it was Mr. Qita, as co-sponsor, who would be fulfilling all of the tasks of settlement.

[240] The Undertaking/Application to Sponsor forms submitted to IRCC included a declaration by Humanity First (the SAH) and Mr. Qita (the co-sponsor) that they had sufficient financial resource to fulfill the undertaking, the information provided was true, complete and accurate, and that they understood the consequences for making false statements or concealing any material fact. The refugees’ applications for sponsorship were determined based on the content of the forms submitted.

[241] Neither IRCC nor Humanity First were informed that the refugee applicants were advancing their own settlement funds or that the refugee applicants were paying Explore Canada, Mr. Qita’s company, to prepare their immigration applications.

[242] The refugee applicants advance the settlement funds to Mr. Qita through his immigration business, Explore Canada. Mr. Qita then provided the settlement funds to Humanity First to be held in trust for the refugee applicants. The funds were transferred by way of bank drafts.

[243] It was not acceptable to Humanity First that the obligation to provide settlement funds be placed on the refugee applicants. It was not acceptable to Humanity First that anyone make a profit from the refugees. This was contrary to Humanity First’s philosophy.

[244] As with counts 1 to 4, the context of the objectives for IRPA must be kept in mind. There were competing inferences that could be drawn. One inference was that as the refugee applicants stated that they wanted to be self-sufficient and had their own funds available to them, so it was not necessary for Mr. Qita, as the co-sponsor, to provide the settlement funds.

[245] However, another inference that could be drawn was that Mr. Qita did not have the financial capacity to fulfill the undertaking and the Settlement Plan and by transferring the obligation to the refugee applicants and conveying to them that it was their obligation to pay their own settlement funds, Mr. Qita never intended to meet this financial obligation.

[246] Further, in Mr. Salem’s case, when an issue arose as a result of IRCC learning of a sizeable donation, two letters of explanation (one from Mr. Salem and one from Mr. Qita) were provided to Humanity First. Similar letters had been prepared by Mr. Qita in relation to funds advanced by Obiada Aswad and Orwa Aswad. However, these latter explanatory letters were not provided to Humanity First or IRCC. These latter explanatory letters were included in documents that were seized from Mr. Qita’s home/office pursuant to a search warrant.

[247] The evidence called by the Crown was reasonably capable of supporting inferences that favour the Crown. At this stage, I cannot assess the credibility or reliability of the evidence and where there is more than one possible inference, I must draw the inferences that favour the Crown. Whether the source of settlement funds was material to Mr. Qita’s capacity to fulfill the undertaking and Settlement Plan that was submitted is a question of mixed fact and law and is for the jury to determine.

[248] With respect to counts 5 to 9, I found that the Crown had demonstrated that there were reasonable inferences consistent with guilt. I cannot as the motions judge determine whether those inferences should be drawn. It is up to the jury to make that determination.

[249] I am satisfied that a reasonable jury properly instructed could return a verdict of guilty. Therefore, for counts 5 to 9, the motion for directed verdict must be dismissed.

Counts 10 to 14

[250] As outlined above, the refugee applicants either advanced or agreed to advance their own settlement funds. The refugee applicants either paid or agreed to pay fees to Mr. Qita for preparing and submitting their immigration applications. This is captured in para. 3 of the Retainer Agreements.

[251] On a plain reading of the email, I found that there was more than one possible inference that could be drawn. The defence argued that the email demonstrated that Mr. Qita encouraged the refugee applicants to be honest.

[252] The Crown placed particular emphasis on Mr. Qita’s direction that the applicants should not indicate that they had paid him any fees “since that was the requirement of the sponsoring organization that I matched you with.” As outlined in the discussion for counts 1 to 9, the Crown argued that the requirement for the refugee applicants to advance their own settlement fees was contrary to both the Sponsorship Agreements/MOUs (regardless of whether 798 Canada or Humanity First was the sponsor), contrary to the Undertaking/Application to Sponsor and Settlement Plan forms that were filed and contrary to the basis upon which the undertakings were approved.

[253] Further, as Mr. Qita was both the owner of 798 Canada and co-sponsor with Humanity First, he effectively matched the applicants with himself but did not want it known that his immigration company (Explore Canada) had received payment (or the promise of payment) for completing the immigration forms for the applicants who were being sponsored. The Crown also argued that Mr. Qita was trying to conceal that the refugee applicants had advanced the settlement funds through his immigration company, Explore Canada.

[254] The Crown submitted that through this email, Mr. Qita counselled the recipients of the email to hide that he collected fees from them. Further, the Crown submitted that through this email, Mr. Qita counselled the recipients of the email to hide that in exchange for the sponsorship and resettlement commitment being made by 798 Canada as sponsor and Mr. Qita as co-sponsor, there was the expectation of monetary consideration.

[255] Once again, I found that from the evidence more than one inference could be made and that the evidence was reasonably capable of supporting inferences that favour the Crown. I cannot assess the credibility or reliability of the evidence on this motion. As outlined above, where there is more than one possible inference, I must draw the inferences that favour the Crown.

[256] I found that the Crown had demonstrated that there were reasonable inferences consistent with guilt. It is not up to me as the motions judge to determine whether those inferences should be drawn as that must be determined by a jury.

[257] I am satisfied that a reasonable jury properly instructed could return a verdict of guilty. Therefore, for counts 10 to 14, the motion for directed verdict must be dismissed.

[258] For the reasons outlined above, the Applicants’ motion for a directed verdict was dismissed.

[259] I thank counsel for their helpful submissions.

Kumaranayake J.

Released: May 17, 2021

COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-1806

DATE: 2021 05 17

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

and -

7891296 CANADA INCORPORATED AND WISSAM QITA, AKA SAM QITA

REASONS FOR DECISION

(MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT)

Kumaranayake J.

Released: May 17, 2021

[^1]: This federal government department was previously known as Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC”). The name of this federal government department changed in late 2015. IRCC and CIC are used interchangeably in these Reasons.

[^2]: This Regulation was amended during the time period of the offence dates. However, no change was made to the content of the Regulation in force between 2015-12-01 to 2016-03-10 and 2016-03-11 to 2016-06-12.

I. INTRODUCTION

II. THE CHARGES

III. BACKGROUND

(1) Retainer Agreements

(2) Documents Submitted

(3) Use of Representation Form

(4) Type of Sponsorship and Documents Submitted

IV. COUNTS 1 TO 4

(1) Undertaking to Sponsor/Application (Counts 1 to 4)

(2) Settlement Plan and Financial Assessment Community Sponsors (Counts 1 to 4)

(3) Sponsorship Agreement/MOU (Counts 1 to 4)

(4) The Applicants

(i) Mohammed Kara Ali

(ii) Radwan Amayri

(iii) Ismaiel Jourieh

(iv) Almuatsem Amairi

V. COUNTS 5 TO 9

(1) Undertaking/Application to Sponsor (Counts 5 to 9)

(2) Settlement Plan (Counts 5 to 9)

(3) Sponsorship Agreement/MOU (Counts 5 to 9)

(4) The Applicants

(i) Obiada Aswad and Orwa Aswad

(ii) Hakam Tanish and Ebtasem Eisa

(iii) Yasser Salem

VI. COUNTS 10 TO 14

(i) EMAIL – JUNE 18, 2016 – COUNTS 10 - 14

VII. THE RECIPIENTS OF THE EMAIL

VIII. LEGAL PRINCIPLES – Directed Verdict

VIII. ANALYSIS

Counts 1 to 4

Counts 5 to 9

Counts 10 to 14

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Issues

Statutory Provisions 3

Legal Tests 2

Legislation 4