Dehghani v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, (1993) 150 N.R. 241 (SCC)

• Judge: Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 02, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 150 N.R. 241 (SCC);[1993] 1 SCR 1053;JE 93-663;14 CRR (2d) 1;20 CR (4th) 34;[1993] ACS no 38;1993 CanLII 128 (SCC);150 NR 241;101 DLR (4th) 654;[1993] SCJ No 38 (QL);20 RC (4th) 34;10 Admin LR (2d) 1;AZ-93111030

Dehghani v. MEI (1993), 150 N.R. 241 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Abdul Rassoul Dehghani (appellant) v. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (respondent) and The Canadian Council for Refugees (intervener)

(22153)

Indexed As: Dehghani v. Minister of Employment and Immigration

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Sopinka,

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and

Iacobucci, JJ.

March 25, 1993.

Summary:

A credible basis tribunal set up under the Immigration Act ruled that Dehghani's claim for Convention refugee status did not have a credible basis. An exclusion order was issued. Dehghani applied under s. 28 of the Federal Court Act to set aside the tribunal's decision. He challenged the validity of the exclusion order, arguing that the tribunal considered evidence which was obtained during a secondary interview at an entry point contrary to his right to counsel.

The Federal Court of Appeal, Heald, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported 113 N.R. 382, dismissed the application. Dehghani appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Aliens - Topic 1330

Admission - Refugees - Right to counsel - Interviews at points of entry - An Iran­ian flew to Canada and sought Convention refugee status at Toronto airport - The primary inspection officer directed him to an interview room for a secondary inter­view - He waited approximately four hours - He was interviewed without being informed of his right to counsel - The Iranian argued that his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter was violated - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the alien was not "detained" within the meaning of s. 10(b) and therefore had no right to counsel during the secondary interview - See paragraphs 1 to 42.

Aliens - Topic 1330

Admission - Refugees - Right to counsel - Interviews at points of entry - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the relationship between s. 7 and ss. 8 to 14 of the Charter - They opined that there may be situations where s. 7 gives rise to a right to counsel when there is no "deten­tion" such as to invoke the right to counsel in s. 10 of the Charter - The court held, however, that in an immigration examina­tion for routine information gathering purposes (e.g., port of entry interviews), the right to counsel does not extend beyond those circumstances of arrest or detention described in s. 10(b) - See para­graphs 43 to 50.

Civil Rights - Topic 3604

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes - [See first Aliens - Topic 1330 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - Denial of - What con­stitutes - [See both Aliens - Topic 1330 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4613

Right to counsel - Requirement of arrest or detention - [See first Aliens - Topic 1330 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4657

Right to counsel - Entitlement - Border searches, immigration interviews, etc. - [See both Aliens - Topic 1330 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8467

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Interrelationship among Charter rights - [See second Aliens 1330 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [paras. 13, 21 et seq.].

R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; 89 N.R. 1; 30 O.A.C. 241; 66 C.R.(3d) 297; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 296; 38 C.R.R. 252; 18 C.E.R. 227; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 673; 67 O.R.(2d) 63n, refd to. [paras. 14, 28].

Singh et al. v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1; 17 D.L.R.(4th) 422; 14 C.R.R. 13; 12 Admin. L.R. 137, refd to. [paras. 15, 43, 49].

R. v. Rodenbush (1985), 21 C.C.C.(3d) 423; 47 C.R.(3d) 10 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Kwok (1986), 18 O.A.C. 38; 31 C.C.C.(3d) 196 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 25, 36, 37].

R. v. Simmons (1984), 3 O.A.C. 1; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 7 D.L.R.(4th) 719; 45 O.R.(2d) 609 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 26, et seq.].

R. v. Jacoy, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 548; 89 N.R. 61, refd to. [para. 31].

Chiarelli v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711; 135 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 33].

Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779; 129 N.R. 81; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 33].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [paras. 44, 47].

Reference Re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 65; 77 C.R.(3d) 1; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 44].

Prostitution Reference - see Reference Re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 76 C.R.(3d) 129; 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Pearson, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 665; 144 N.R. 243, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Généreux, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 259; 133 N.R. 241; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 110, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284; 69 N.R. 241; 73 A.R. 133, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [paras. 47, 48].

Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie v. Commission canadienne des droits de la personne, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 879; 100 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 47].

Knight v. Board of Education of Indian Head School Division No. 19, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 653; 106 N.R. 17; 83 Sask.R. 81; 69 D.L.R.(4th) 489; [1990] 3 W.W.R. 289, refd to. [para. 47].

Pearlman v. Manitoba Law Society Judi­cial Committee, [1991], 2 S.C.R. 869; [1991] 6 W.W.R. 289; 130 N.R. 121; 75 Man.R.(2d) 81; 6 W.A.C. 81 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 57; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 97; 66 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 48].

Monfort v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1980] 1 F.C. 478; 30 N.R. 174; 105 D.L.R.(3d) 463 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [paras. 18, 44]; sect. 7 [para. 1 et seq.]; sect. 8 [paras. 35, 44]; sect. 9, sect. 10 [para. 44]; sect. 10(b) [para. 1 et seq.]; sect. 11, sect. 12, sect. 13, sect. 14 [para. 44]; sect. 24(2) [para. 51].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 28 [para. 19].

Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, sect. 12(1), sect. 12(3) [para. 8]; sect. 12(3)(a) [para. 39]; sect. 12(4) [para. 8]; sect. 19 [paras. 3, 5]; sect. 20 [para. 25]; sect. 20(1) [para. 8]; sect. 23(3), sect. 23(4), sect. 30(1) [paras. 8, 49]; sect. 43(1), sect. 94(1) [para. 8].

Counsel:

Pia Zambelli and Barbara Jackman, for the appellant;

J.E. Thompson, Q.C., and Donald A. MacIntosh, for the respondent;

David Matas, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

Hoppe, Jackman & Associates, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent;

David Matas, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard on December 2, 1992, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, So­pinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iaco­bucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered on March 25, 1993, in both official languages, by Iacobucci, J.