Williams v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1997) 212 N.R. 63 (FCA)

• Judge: Strayer, Robertson and McDonald, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: March 20, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1997), 212 N.R. 63 (FCA);1997 CanLII 4972 (FCA);147 DLR (4th) 93;212 NR 63;4 Admin LR (3d) 200;[1997] FCJ No 393 (QL);129 FTR 240;70 ACWS (3d) 885

Williams v. Can. (M.C.I.) (1997), 212 N.R. 63 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (appellant) v. Jeffrey Hugh Williams (respondent)

(A-855-96)

Indexed As: Williams v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Federal Court of Appeal

Strayer, Robertson and McDonald, JJ.A.

April 11, 1997.

Summary:

Williams, who had been in Canada since 1976, was convicted of four drug related offences between 1989 and 1992. A depor­tation order was issued. A delegate of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration ruled that Williams constituted a danger to the public and therefore could not appeal the deportation order to the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (Immi­gration Act, s. 70(5)). Williams applied to quash the decision.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Di­vision, in a decision reported 121 F.T.R. 212, allowed the application and referred the matter for reconsideration. The court delayed issuing an order for 10 days to allow counsel to make submissions on certi­fication of questions for the Court of Appeal.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Di­vision, in the decision reported 121 F.T.R. 226, certified four questions respecting the constitutionality and application of s. 70(5).

The Federal Court of Appeal answered the questions accordingly. In the result the appeal was allowed and the order of the Trial Division set aside.

Administrative Law - Topic 547

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decisions - When required - [See Aliens - Topic 1645 ].

Aliens - Topic 1645

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Deportation - Grounds for - Danger to the public - Section 70(5) of the Immi­gration Act provided that there was no appeal from a deportation order where the Minister was of the opinion that the per­son constituted a danger to the public in Canada - The Federal Court of Appeal held that s. 70(5) did not engage interests affecting liberty or security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter - Even if s. 7 was engaged, s. 70(5) was not constitu­tionally vague nor did the failure of s. 70(5) to require reasons violate the prin­ciples of fundamental justice guaranteed by s. 7 or by s. 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights - The procedure used by the Minister in exercising the discretion under s. 70(5) was not inconsistent with s. 7 - Further, the failure to provide reasons did not breach the requirements of natural justice or procedural fairness.

Civil Rights - Topic 660.2

Liberty - Limitations on - Immigration - [See Aliens - Topic 1645 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1325

Security of the person - Immigration - Deportation - [See Aliens - Topic 1645 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Void for vagueness doctrine - [See Aliens - Topic 1645 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3194

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Administrative and noncriminal proceedings - Right to rea­sons for decision - [See Aliens - Topic 1645 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8006

Canadian Bill of Rights - Principles of fundamental justice - [See Aliens - Topic 1645 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8626

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Regulation of guaranteed rights - Vagueness rule - [See Aliens - Topic 1645 ].

Cases Noticed:

Clarke v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 123 F.T.R. 277 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 4].

Ibraham v. Canada (Minister of Citizen­ship and Immigration) (1996), 123 F.T.R. 287 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 7, foot­note 4].

Hinds v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 123 F.T.R. 297 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 4].

Calabrese v. Canada (Minister of Citizen­ship and Immigration) (1996), 115 F.T.R. 213 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 4].

Gervasoni v. Canada (Minister of Citizen­ship and Immigration) (1996), 110 F.T.R. 297 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 5].

Canales v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 114 F.T.R. 281 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 5].

Lindo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 119 F.T.R. 130 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 5].

Chiarelli v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711; 135 N.R. 161; 90 D.L.R.(4th) 289, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 6].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Purcell, [1996] 1 F.C. 644; 192 N.R. 148 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 10].

Shah v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1994), 170 N.R. 238 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 17, 39, foot­notes 11, 31].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 207 N.R. 57 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 12].

Singh 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. [para. 22, footnote 13].

Hoang v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1990), 120 N.R. 193; 13 Imm. L.R.(2d) 35 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 14].

Canepa v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 3 F.C. 270; 145 N.R. 121 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 14].

Barrera v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1993] 2 F.C. 3; 151 N.R. 28 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 14].

Chiarelli v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 2 F.C. 299; 107 N.R. 107 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Nguyen v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1993), 151 N.R. 69; 18 Imm. L.R.(2d) 165 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 17].

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 31 C.R.R. 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 62 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 25, footnote 19].

Sheena B., Re, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; 176 N.R. 161; 78 O.A.C. 1; 9 R.F.L.(4th) 157; 122 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 25, footnote 20].

R.B. v. Children's Aid Society of Metro­politan Toronto - see Sheena B., Re.

B. et al. v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto - see Sheena B., Re.

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 29, footnote 22].

Thompson v. Canada (Minister of Citizen­ship and Immigration) (1996), 118 F.T.R. 269 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 29, footnote 23].

R. v. Morales (M.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711; 144 N.R. 176, addendum 147 N.R. 335; 51 Q.A.C. 161; 17 C.R.(4th) 74, refd to. [para. 33, footnote 25].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 61 C.R.(3d) 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 33, foot­note 26].

Northwestern Utilities Ltd. v. Edmonton (City), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 684; 23 N.R. 565; 12 A.R. 449; 89 D.L.R.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 39].

Public Service Board of New South Wales v. Osmond (1986), 159 C.L.R. 656 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 39, footnote 39].

R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Doody et al., [1994] 1 A.C. 531 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 39, footnote 30].

Bidulka et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al., [1987] 3 F.C. 630; 76 N.R. 374 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 39, footnote 30].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada (1995), 192 N.R. 125 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 39, footnote 30].

R. v. Civil Service Appeal Board; Ex parte Cunningham, [1991] 4 All E.R. 310 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40, footnote 32].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Bill of Rights, sect. 2(e) [para. 44].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 22].

Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, sect. 27(1), sect. 32(2) [para. 3]; sect. 70(1), sect. 70(5) [para. 5].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Wade, William, and Forsyth, Administra­tive Law (7th Ed. 1994), p. 443 [para. 17, footnote 11].

Counsel:

Urszula Kaczmarczyk and John Loncar, for the appellant;

Ronald Poulton and Victoria Russel, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Jackman & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on March 20, 1997, before Strayer, Robertson and McDonald, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. Strayer, J.A., delivered the following judgment on April 11, 1997, in Ottawa, Ontario.