Moore v Minister of Manpower and Immigration,

• Judge: Judson J.,Spence J,Spence J.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Date: 24 June 1968

Canada, Supreme Court.

Moore

and

The Minister of Manpower and Immigration.

Aliens — Expulsion of — Right of expulsion — Whether deportee entitled to choose destination — The law of Canada.

The Facts.—This was an appeal from a decision of the Immigration Appeal Board affirming a deportation order made against the appellant by a Special Inquiry Officer of the Department of Manpower and Immigration by reason of the appellant having already been deported in 1959. The appellant, a citizen of the United States with a criminal record in that country, re-entered Canada in 1967 from Panama by air, carrying a Canadian passport stating that he was born in Canada and was a Canadian citizen. Two days after his entry and while waiting to board a plane to Panama, he was arrested. An inquiry was ordered under the Immigration Act, and the appellant was ordered to be deported. The deportation order did not specify the country to which he was to be deported, but the Minister had stated that he intended to direct that the appellant be deported to the United States. The appellant was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Held: that the appeal must be dismissed. The Special Inquiry Officer had jurisdiction to make the deportation order since the appellant was unlawfully in Canada. It was not necessary that the destination be stated in the order of deportation. The appellant had no right to choose his destination. The choice rested with the Minister and not with the person to be deported. The Minister had that power, and his mode of exercising that choice did not raise a question of law which was reviewable by the Court.

The Court stated the facts and said (per Judson J., with whom Martland and Ritchie J J. concurred):

‘The first submission of the appellant is that the Special Inquiry Officer should have declined to act and permitted him to leave Canada as he was trying to do. It is argued that the Special Inquiry Officer had no jurisdiction since the appellant was neither seeking to come into Canada nor seeking to remain in Canada. The answer to this submission is that the appellant was unlawfully in Canada contrary to the Immigration Act. On 8 May 1959 a deportation order had been made against him and he was deported to the United States on 22 May 1959. He was therefore in breach of s. 19 (e) (ix) of the Immigration Act. He was also in possession of a Canadian passport which stated that he was born in Canada and was a Canadian citizen. He was, in fact, born in the United States and was a citizen of that country. When he was trying to leave, he produced that passport for the purpose of obtaining from Canadian Pacific Airlines a tourist card to enable him to enter Mexico on his return journey. He also had a serious criminal record in the United States. This was the reason for his deportation in 1959. There can be no doubt that the deportation order was properly made.

‘The next submission is that the deportation order should have stated the Republic of Panama as the destination, as the appellant requested. The deportation order simply orders a deportation and does not specify any destination. The answer to this submission is that the order was made in accordance with the terms of the Act and Regulation 22. Regulation 22 provides that a Special Inquiry Officer making a...