AuthorJamie Chai Yun Liew; Donald Galloway
As outlined in previous chapters, the immigration system aims to at-
tract and facilitate the entry of various classe s of people into Canada.
At the same time, it establi shes mechanisms to ensure that t hose whose
presence is unwelcome are denied entry or are removed. The idea that
some individuals are desired while others are not is ref‌lected in the
objectives listed in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IR PA).1
On the one hand, there are provisions to facilitate family reunif‌ication2
and to “permit Canad a to pursue the maximum socia l, cultural and
economic benef‌its of imm igration.”3 On the other hand, there are pro-
visions to “protect the health and safety of Canadians and to m aintain
the security of Can ada.”4
Thus, while an applicant may be eligible to obtain status in Canada
in the sense th at he meets the selection criteria, he may neverthele ss
be inadmis sible. Where a reason exists for barring entry or continued
residence, it will usual ly trump any reason for permitti ng the person
to stay.
1 Immigration and Ref ugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, s 3 [IRPA].
2 Ibid, s 3(1)(d).
3 Ibid, s 3(1)(a).
4 Ibid, s 3(1)(h).
Over the years, recurring warnings have been included in gov-
ernment publications that, as a society, we face severe and continuing
threats from organi zations and individuals from beyond our borders.
Moreover, a dominant idea that has recently informed and sh aped the
government’s agenda on immigration regulation is t hat these groups
and individuals w ill be able to perpetrate their mischief more easily
unless we police our borders more carefully and impose tougher sanc-
tions on those whom we have permitted to enter but who may have
spurned our generosity by engaging in w rongful or irregular conduct.
It has become a high priority to ex pose the possible threats posed by
non-citizens who seek to enter or who may have entered the country
for illegitimate reasons and to devise and develop effective remedies
that will addre ss the risks effectively. As a consequence, we have wit-
nessed substantial modif‌ications to our immigr ation laws with a new
and stronger emphasis being placed on securitization and deterrence.
The fact that undeserv ing victims are also netted in thes e wide-ranging
efforts to dimin ish the risks appears to b e regarded as merely unfortu-
nate and unavoidable collateral damage. This change in emphasis has
been noted by the Supreme Court of Canada. In Medovarski v Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); Esteban v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), the Chief Justice observed:
The objectives as expre ssed in the IR PA ind icate an intent to prior i-
tize secur ity. This objective is given ef fect by preventing the entry of
applicants wit h criminal record s, by removing applicants w ith such
records from Canad a, and by emphasizing t he obligation of perma-
nent residents to beh ave lawfully while in Ca nada. This marks a
change from the focus i n the predecessor statute, which emph asized
the successful i ntegration of applicants more than secu rity . . . .5
In addition, the government has introduced h arsh measures to
counter what it identif‌ies as serious attack s on its sovereignty by those
who would seek to weaken the fabric of the immig ration regime by
violating its norms. Expensive and controversial processes have been
developed to root out those who have misrepresented their status or
ignored the conditions placed upon their entr y.
One can trace this development in immigration law in Canada to
the statement of Sopinka J in Canad a (Minister of Employment and Immi-
gration) v Chiarelli that, “[t]he most fundamental principle of immigra-
tion law is that non-citizens do not have an unqualif‌ied right to enter
or remain in the countr y.”6 This statement has been repeated f requently
5 2005 SCC 51 at para 10 [Medovarski].
6 [1992] 1 SCR 711 at 733.
Inadmissibility 473
in very different circumstances to justify t he denial of entry or the
removal of both foreign nationals and per manent residents. Despite
the inf‌luence of Sopinka J’s statement, its pedig ree and the conclusions
to which it has led him are both of quest ionable merit.7 Neverthless, it
is undeniable that the idea t hat admission into Canada is “a privilege
determined by statute, regulation or otherwise, and not a matter of
right”8 is t he normative approach that currently guides how Ca nada
determines inad missibility and provides the underlying rationale for
the criteria of in admissibility that are applied.
This chapter focuses on the cr iteria used to f‌ind a person inad mis-
sible, while also highlighti ng the signif‌icance of recent changes intro-
duced in Bill C-43, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, which
came into force in June 2013.9
The I RPA , sections 34 to 42, sets out ten general grounds of inadmis-
sibility: securit y (section 34); human or international right s violations
(section 35); serious crimin ality (section 36);10 organized cri minality
(section 37); health (section 38); f‌inancial reasons (section 39); mis-
representation (section 40); cessation of refugee protection (section
40 .1);11 non-compliance w ith the IR PA (section 41); and inadmissible
family member (section 42).12
7 See Chapter 1, which d iscusses how Sopink a J’s statement relies on a question-
able claim of Lord De nning, in R v Governor of Pentonville Pr ison , [1973] 2 All
ER 741 at 747 (CA), that “[a]t common law no alien has any r ight to enter this
country except b y leave of the Crown . . . . If he comes by leave, t he Crown can
impose such condit ions as it thinks f‌it” and how va rious scholars have cha l-
lenged the valid ity of this view in the com mon law.
8 Toronto Coalition to Stop the War v Canada (Minist er of Public Safety and Emer-
gency P reparednes s), 2009 FC 326 at para 23.
9 SC 2013, c 16.
10 Crimin ality is included as a subcat egory that applies only to foreign n ationals.
Serious cr iminality applies to b oth permanent resident s and foreign nationals.
11 This ground of in admissibility is con sidered in Chapter 11 dealing w ith inland
refugee determ inations.
12 Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Re fugee Protection Act, the Civil Mar-
riage Act and the Criminal Cod e and to make consequenti al amendments to othe r
Acts, 2nd Sess, 41st Parl, 2013–2014 (Second Reading in the Hou se of Commons
and Referral t o Committee 23 March 2015): New additions wil l be added to this
ground of inadmissibility.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT