Date: 20001218
Docket: IMM-6224-00
B E T W E E N:
CHEONG SING LAI and MING NA TSANG
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
CAMPBELL J.
[1] The Applicants are refugee claimants being held in custody pending the outcome of the refugee determination process pursuant to the Immigration Act. [1] By this judicial review application, the Applicants' challenge the legal basis upon which they are being held in custody. In essence, they argue that the immigration status provided to them upon making their refugee claims precludes any custodial order being made and maintained.
[2] The decision specifically under consideration in the present application is that of Adjudicator Daphne Shaw Dyck, who, acting under the authority provided in s.103(6), found that the Applicants have been lawfully detained, and, consequently, refused their release on the ground that they are unlikely to appear for possible removal from Canada upon completion of the refugee determination process presently under way. It is agreed that, with respect to the detention review conducted, an Adjudicator has the authority and a duty to order the release of a detained person if it is determined that he or she is being unlawfully detained.
[3] Through agreement between the Applicants, the Respondent, and the Court, the present application was heard on an expedited basis in order to limit the prejudice to the Applicants should they be found to be unlawfully detained. [2]
A. Factual background
[4] In the written argument prepared by Mr. Darryl W. Larson, counsel for the Applicants, the factual context for the present application is described as follows:
The applicants are nationals of the People's Republic of China (China). In early 1999, Mr. Lai, a successful and prominent businessman, was caught up in a political power struggle between two high level officials in the Public Security Ministry of the Chinese Government. He was threatened with financial ruin and made the subject of an investigation into smuggling. He is alleged by Chinese authorities to have masterminded the smuggling of large quantities of ordinary goods –cars, cigarettes, crude oil etc--into China without paying duty. The Special Prosecutor in charge of the investigation indicated he wanted to and would get Mr. Lai.
After Mr. Lai was tipped off by a high level contact in Hong Kong Immigration Department that he was about to be arrested by the Chinese authorities on the pretext of having fake Hong Kong documents, he and his wife and their three children left China immediately. The entire family travelled on Hong Kong special Administrative Region Passports issued to them by the Hong Kong Immigration Department. They entered Canada on August 14, 1999 and were granted permission to remain in Canada as visitors until March 13, 2000. Mr. Lai was hopeful that in this time he would be able to negotiate an agreement with the Chinese Government to resolve the issues between them.
On November 1, 1999, Ms. Tsang purchased the family home at 1238 West 57 Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia where they maintained their residence. Prior to the expiry of their visitor status on March 13, 2000, they submitted an application to the Citizenship and Immigration Canada Case Processing Centre in Vegreville, Alberta for an extension of their stay. The application confirmed their current address. The extension was granted on March 22, 2000 and they were given visitor status until September 30, 2000.
Following a meeting on 1 June 2000 between Mr. Lai and three Chinese government agents and one of Mr. Lai's brothers, brought to Canada for the meeting, Mr. Lai determined there was no possibility of him and his family returning to China in safety. On June 8, 2000, Mr. Lai and Ms. Tsang first stated their intention to make a refugee claim to an official in Canada when they attended at the offices of CIC Vancouver, B.C. Their claims were acknowledged on July 26, 2000 and they were found eligible to have their claims determined by the Convention Refugee Determination Division on 18 September 2000.
Although not contained in the evidence, it was accepted by both sides at the detention reviews on 28 November 2000 and 1 December 2000 that Mr. Lai and Ms. Tsang were issued Conditional Departure Orders on September 18, 2000, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 28(1) of the Immigration Act.
On October 24, 2000, the applicants submitted their Personal Information Forms in support of their refugee claims. They disclosed their home address in their PIFs.
In early November 2000, the applicants moved to a new residence at 1707-6088 Willingdon Avenue, Burnaby, BC. On November 9, 2000, counsel notified both the CRDD and CIC of the applicants' new address.
On November 20, 2000, a Warrant for Arrest for each of the applicants was signed by R.B. Johnston, Manager, CIC Enforcement, Vancouver, commanding each of the applicants to be arrested. The Warrants did not state the reason for arrest.
On the afternoon of November 23, 2000, Ms. Tsang was arrested at her home in Burnaby and Mr. Lai was arrested outside a casino in Niagara Falls, Ontario.
On November 23, 2000, the Respondent filed notices of Intent to Participate in the refugee claims of the applicants based on the Minister's view that "matters involving section F(b) of Article 1 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and/or subsection 2(2) of the Act are raised by the claim[s]¼". The notices of Intent further alleged that the Minister believes the applicants have committed serious non-political crimes.
At the first detention review held on November 28, 2000, the Minister's representative asserted that the reason for the arrest was the Minister's belief that once the applicants learned the Minister would be intervening in their refugee claims, they would not appear for removal. This notwithstanding that the applicants had been at liberty since they made their intention to claim refugee status known on June 13, 2000 and had known prior to submitting their claims that the Minister was likely to intervene in them. [3]
B. The Adjudicator's decision
[5] In her December 5, 2000 decision, the Adjudicator found as follows:
Removal from Canada
A senior immigration officer has issued Mr. Lai and Ms. Tsang with conditional departure orders. Section 2 of the Immigration Act defines a removal order as a departure order, exclusion order or deportation order. A conditional removal order is defined as a conditional departure order or a conditional deportation order.
Clearly, a refugee claimant cannot be removed from Canada until the conditional removal order becomes effective. Mr. Lai and Ms. Tsang will undergo the refugee determination process. It is only if they are unsuccessful that removal proceedings will be initiated. Justice Rothstein in the Federal Court Trial Division decision in Sahin [Sahin v. Canada, [1995] F.C. 150 (T.D.)], a person also with a conditional departure order, stated:
As long as a conditional removal order may become an effective removal order, section 103 recognizes that the Minister must be in a position to enforce the order. It is consistent with that objective that persons be detained when the Minister is of the opinion that they would not appear if a removal order is to be executed.
Later, in the same decision, he said:
In many cases the most satisfactory course of action will be to detain the individual but expedite the Immigration proceedings.
The Immigration Act enables the Minister to allow many persons who receive departure orders and conditional departure orders to leave Canada voluntarily....
There is no legal obligation on the part of the Minister of Immigration to allow every recipient of a conditional departure order to leave Canada voluntarily. The scheme of the Act contemplates that such persons can be detained while going through the refugee process if the Minister becomes satisfied that the person is unlikely to appear for removal and adjudicators likewise make such a finding.
With respect to who has the legal responsibility to ensure removal orders are executed, it can only be the Minister. For it to be otherwise would take the operation, control and administration of the Act completely out of the hands of the Minister responsible for it....
Mr. Lai and Ms. Tsang have conditional removal orders that may become effective. Although they must go through a process, their removal from Canada is not illusory.
There is no evidence that Mr. Lai and Ms. Tsang are being detained for any purpose other than removal from Canada. The decision to remove Mr. Lai and Ms. Tsang to China is for the Minister of Immigration to make.
Alternatives to Detention
As there is a potential for lengthy but not indefinite detention, alternatives to detention ought to be considered. With respect to ordering the release of Mr. Lai and Ms. Tsang on terms and conditions, a huge bond would be unlikely to tether them to Canada as they have a great deal of money, which judging from Mr. Lai's gambling activities in Canada, they are quite prepared to lose. I have already stated they have the history, financial means and contacts that easily would enable them to disappear very quickly and thus fail to appear for removal from Canada. [4] [Emphasis added]
C. The question of law to be determined
[6] The Applicants take issue with the Adjudicator's finding that there is no legal obligation on the part of the Minister to allow every recipient of a conditional departure order to leave Canada voluntarily. It is agreed that this finding raises the following question for determination: "Can a person who is the subject of a conditional departure order or an effective departure order be detained for reason of removal from Canada?" If the answer to this question is "no", then the Adjudicator made an error in law.
1. The Applicants' argument
[7] Finding the answer to the question involves finding Parliament's intention in enacting s.103(1) which reads as follows:
103. (1) The Deputy Minister or a senior immigration officer may issue a warrant for the arrest and detention of any person where
(a) an examination or inquiry is to be held, a decision is to be made pursuant to subsection 27(4) or a removal order or conditional removal order has been made with respect to the person; and
(b) in the opinion of the Deputy Minister or that officer, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person poses a danger to the public or would not appear for the examination, inquiry or proceeding in relation to the decision or for removal from Canada. [Emphasis added]
[8] The Applicants' argument in this respect turns on whether the Applicants can be held for the reason of "removal" allowed under this provision. That is, the provision allows for detention in three circumstances: for examination, for inquiry, or "for removal". The Applicants argue that since the Minister chose the "administrative" route rather than the "inquiry" route in dealing with the Applicants' claim for refugee status, and, accordingly, a departure order was issued, this choice effectively precludes removal at any time during the refugee claim process.
[9] The Applicants urge two methods of divining the will of Parliament with respect to the interpretation of s.103. First, it is argued that there are key differences between the provisions of the "old" Immigration Act, being those in existence up to 1992, and the "new" Immigration Act provisions currently in effect which lead to the conclusion advanced. The second line of argument focuses only on the interpretation of the provisions of the presently applicable legislation.
[10] The Applicants' comparison approach is advanced with no reliable supporting evidence of the intention of Parliament in effecting the changes identified such as an account of the Parliamentary history of the "new" legislation. I find that, without such evidence, the literal interpretation of the words used in the current legislation is the only reliable approach for determining the intention of Parliament. [5]
[11] Accordingly, I will approach the present statutory interpretation exercise solely on the basis of the current Immigration Act. In this regard, the Applicants, as persons who are other than Canadian citizens or permanent residents, submit that significant importance must be attached to the choice made by the Minister of the "administrative" process which uses the authority of a Senior Immigration Officer ("SIO") rather than the "inquiry" process which uses the authority of an adjudicator to determine their immigration status in Canada . A convenient summary of the nature of these processes is as follows:
To initiate the process of removal from Canada of a person who is not a permanent resident nor a citizen, an immigration officer or peace officer must, except in an exceptional case, forward a written report, again called a s.27 report, to the deputy minister setting out the details of any information that the person is a person who fits any of the descriptions found in s.27(2). The descriptions found in s.27(2) parallel the classes of inadmissibility in s.19 and the descriptions found in s.27(1), but are broader in coverage.
The deputy minister, or his or her delegate, after reviewing the report, has three options. First, under s.27(2.1) of the Act, he or she may allow a person who entered the country as a visitor to remain as a visitor. Alternatively, where the deputy minister considers it appropriate, and subject to ministerial direction, in cases where the report alleges that the person fits under four categories found in s.27(2), he or she may forward a copy of the report to a senior immigration officer with a direction to make a determination. The four categories are those found in s.27(2)(a) by reason of s.19(2)(d) (being inadmissible by not complying with conditions or requirements of the law); s.27(2)(e) by reason of s.26 (1)(c) (overstaying one's authorized period as a visitor); s.27(2)(h) (coming into Canada without consent where required), and s. 27(2)(k) (failing to show for further examination when required). Third, in any case, including those just mentioned, the deputy minister or delegate may direct that an inquiry be held [s.27(3)(b)].
A senior immigration officer, when directed to make a determination, [shall] issue a departure order where satisfied that the person has contravened the Act in any of four specified ways, and has not contravened it in any other way. The four types of specified wrongdoing are remaining in Canada longer than permitted, entering Canada other than through a port of entry, entering without consent of the minister where required, and failing to present oneself for further examination where required [s.27(4)(b)]. Where the senior immigration officer determines that the person is eligible to make a refugee claim, a conditional departure order [shall] be issued [s.28(1)].
Where the senior immigration officer finds that the Act has been contravened in any other way, he or she is required to cause an inquiry to be held [s.27(6)]. [6]
[12] Indeed, with respect to a determination under s.28(1) which is referred to by the Applicants as the "administrative" process, the provision is mandatory. Thus, if an SIO is of the opinion that a person who claims to be a Convention refugee is eligible to have his or her claim referred to the Refugee Division, the SIO is required to make a conditional departure order against the person.
[13] However, if the Minister or Deputy Minister chooses the "inquiry" process by referring the matter to inquiry before an adjudicator, the adjudicator is required to make a deportation order [s.32(6)] unless the adjudicator is satisfied that the person should not be required to obtain the written consent of the Minister before returning to Canada, and the person will leave Canada within the applicable period specified in the Regulations, which presently is 30 days. [s.32(7), s.30.02(1) and Regulation 27 of the Immigration Regulations, 1978].]
[14] The Applicants argue that the distinction between the making of a conditional departure order under the "administrative" process, and the making of a deportation order under the "inquiry" process is of utmost importance. The argument can be summarized as follows:
1. A conditional departure order becomes an effective departure order under s.28(2), for example, when a person is unsuccessful in a refugee claim.
2. Under such circumstances, the person who is now subject to a departure order must appear or be brought before an immigration officer to verify his or her departure from Canada, and to obtain a Certificate of Departure within the prescribed period of time, which is presently 30 days [s.32.01 and Regulation 27].
3. If a Certificate of Departure is not issued within the 30 days, the departure order is deemed to be a deportation order [s.32.02(1)]. In circumstances where the person is no longer in Canada when a departure order becomes a deemed deportation order, the person will be deemed to have been deported from Canada [s.32.02(2)].
4. When a departure order becomes a deportation order, the Minister is authorized to remove the person from Canada [s.52(2)]. Once a person is deemed to be deported and leaves Canada, he or she must obtain the Minister's written consent to be allowed to return to Canada [s.55 (1)].
5. Thus, on the basis described, departure orders should be treated differently from other removal orders, which are defined in s.2(1) to include departure orders, exclusion orders and deportation orders and which are expected to be executed as soon as reasonably practicable [s.48]. In particular, s.52 does not apply to departure orders because the provision refers only to exclusion orders and deportation orders.
6. Thus, Parliament's intention in not including departure orders in s.52 is to allow persons subject to departure orders to obtain a Certificate of Departure, and to leave the country within 30 days. If, however, they fail to do so, they would become subject to a deportation order which would then entitle the Minister to remove them under s.52.
7. Therefore, since in the present case, an SIO made a conditional departure order pursuant to s.28(1) with respect to the Applicants, and, as a result, they are not subject to removal, they are not subject to the provisions of s.103. This is so because, s.103 only authorizes persons to be held in custody for the reasons of examination, inquiry, or removal, and none of these conditions apply to the Applicants.
[15] In addition, the Applicants argue that to arrest and detain someone who is the subject of a conditional removal order, much less a conditional departure order, on the basis that they are being detained for removal, requires a ludicrous degree of speculation which could not be within the intention of Parliament. That is, in order to detain for the reason of removal requires that an adjudicator must: speculate that the refugee claim will fail at all levels, potentially including appeals as far as the Supreme Court of Canada; speculate that a risk assessment would fail; and speculate that the persons concerned will not voluntarily leave Canada within the time period allowed.
E. The Respondent's argument
[16] Ms. Sandra E. Weafer, counsel for the Respondent, submits that the Applicants have failed to raise an arguable case. The Respondent's argument is that, by definition, a "departure order" is a "removal order" [s.2(1)], and, in addition, this Court has held in three decisions that persons who are the subject of departure orders can be involuntarily removed: Gardner v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)[7]where Justice Gibson held that the Minister did not have the authority to use a departure order to remove Gardner against his will prior to the Minister issuing a Certificate of Departure under s.32.01, but that, following the issuance of a Certificate of Departure, involuntary removal is legal; Bedminster v. Canada (M.C.I.) [8] where Justice Pelletier dismissed the applicant's request for stay of a direction to report for removal during the 30 day period within which a Certificate of Departure may be issued, holding that the 30 day period does not preclude the Minister from involuntarily removing an applicant during that period but only following the issuance of a Certificate of Departure; and Trasmundi v. Canada [9] where Justice Sharlow found that:
The error in this reasoning is that the Minister is not precluded from removing the applicant involuntarily (upon expiry of the stay). A departure order, like a deportation order is a removal order and is enforceable in the same way. There is a difference between the two kinds of order, in that the subject of a departure order may have a superior right under section 55 to return to Canada after his departure. [10]
F. The answer to the question of law
[17] In my opinion, the Adjudicator made no error of law in the reasons delivered. I find that the answer to the question "can a person who is the subject of a conditional departure order or an effective departure order be detained for reason of removal from Canada?" is "yes".
[18] It is well-established in law that the Minister may detain a person subject to a conditional removal order to ensure their appearance for potential future removal. Justice Rothstein's 1994 ruling in Sahin v. Canada [11] , to which the Adjudicator in the present case referred, expressly recognizes "that persons may be detained when the Minister is of the opinion that they would not appear if a removal order is to be executed." The decision cites six factors to consider in deciding whether detention is an appropriate option: the reasons for the detention; the length of time in detention; the time detention is likely to continue; whether the applicant or respondent had caused any delay; whether alternatives exist to detention; and the detainee's s.7 Charter [12] right to liberty.
[19] Justice Rothstein's approach to detention orders under the Immigration Act has been distinguished [13], mentioned [14], and followed [15], in other decisions of this Court. In particular, in Salilar v. Canada (M.C.I.) [16] , Justice MacKay applied Justice Rothstein's analysis holding that detention was an extraordinary condition requiring careful examination. He stated as follows:
..in my opinion the likelihood of early action by immigration officials to remove the applicant is only one factor, and perhaps a minor factor, in the ultimate assessment of the likelihood of his appearance for removal if released from detention. Other factors to be considered are referred to by way of example by Rothstein J. (at page 110, Sahin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration). Rothstein J. stresses in his decision the context in which detention reviews are carried on, including an appreciation that detention is an extraordinary condition and that subsection 103(7) of the Act is to be applied consistent with section 7 of the Charter assuring "Everyone .. . the right to . . . liberty . . . and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice". [17]
[20] Therefore, careful judicial consideration has been given to Immigration Act custody, and a stable practice has developed contrary to the Applicants' legal argument. When asked by me during the course of oral argument why the Sahin line of authority should not be considered binding, counsel for the Applicants could do nothing more than say that Justice Rothstein did not have the benefit of his analytical argument when the case was decided.
[21] In addition, when asked what recourse the Minister might have to authorize the custody of a refugee claimant subject to a conditional departure order where evidence exists that he or she will go "underground" before the completion of the refugee claims process, counsel for the Applicants responded that nothing can be done about it until the claims process concludes in a deportation order. In my opinion, this interpretation of s.103 leads to a result which was not intended by Parliament.
[22] As Justice Rothstein found in Sahin, Parliament must have intended that, in the enactment of s.103, the Minister be able to control the viability and integrity of the refugee claim process through use of custodial measures if the criterion under s.103 are met, regardless of the immigration status conferred upon a refugee claimant at the time of making a claim. Sahin states sound law, which has been in existence for six years, and which has been applied by this Court and adhered to by the Minister. I do not find the statutory construction argument advanced by the Applicants sufficiently persuasive to undermine the established authorized practice of detaining refugee claimants where there are reasonable grounds to believe they will not appear for potential future removal.
[23] The present judicial review concerns a narrow, but important, question of law respecting jurisdiction to detain the Applicants for the reason of potential removal from Canada. The actual substantive grounds relied upon to reach the conclusion that the Applicants would not appear for removal were not attacked on the present application.
[24] The Applicants hold a suspicion that the purpose behind their arrest and continued detention is to ensure their return to China if they are unsuccessful in their refugee claims. In the course of oral argument before the Adjudicator, and also before me in the present hearing, Mr. Larson alleged that the immigration custodial provisions are being wrongly used to facilitate the ultimate "extradition" of the Applicants to China to face criminal charges. Before the Adjudicator he expressed that there is no doubt that if the Applicants are returned to China, they will be convicted and executed summarily. [18]
[25] With respect to this allegation, during the course of the hearing before an Adjudicator held on November 28, 2000, counsel for the Minister made this statement which leaves no doubt about why the warrant for arrest was first issued:
In addition, Mr. Adjudicator, it's crystal clear that, having abandoned a billion-dollar fortune, in an effort not to answer to Chinese authorities, there is no amount of money that would act as a motivator to keep them in Canada for removal. Indeed, having refused to surrender their passports to our Department, an adverse inference can be drawn that they want to have every means available to them to be able to leave Canada on their own without the Canadian officials knowing about it. [19]
[26] Whether Mr. Larson is proven correct in his allegation, and whether custody under the Immigration Act can be used for such a purpose, is beyond the scope of this judicial review. With respect to any further attempts on the part of the Applicants to test and challenge the purpose of their custody, and, indeed, the legality of their potential return to China, my decision in the present application is not intended to impose a limit on the Applicants' ability to do so, if and when they so choose.
ORDER
As required by s.82.1(1) of the Immigration Act, an application for judicial review can only be commenced with leave of a judge of this Court. The test for granting leave is whether an applicant has an arguable case in which there is a possibility of success. [20] In the present case, by agreement, both the argument for leave and judicial review were heard together.
I find that the argument advanced by the Applicants meets the test for leave. However, for the reasons above stated, the present application for judicial review is dismissed.
By agreement between counsel for the Applicants and the Respondent, I hereby certify the following question for consideration by the Appeal Division: "Can a person who is the subject of a conditional departure order or an effective departure order be detained for reason of removal from Canada?"
(Sgd.) "Douglas Campbell"
Judge
December 18, 2000
Vancouver, British Columbia
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-6224-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: Cheong Sing Lai et al
v.
MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: December 14, 2000
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF CAMPBELL, J.
DATED: December 18, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Darryl Larson
Mr. Joshua Sohn For the Applicants
Ms. Sandra Weafer For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Larson Boulton Sohn Stockholder
Barristers and Solicitors
Vancouver, BC For the Applicants
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney
General of Canada For the Respondent
APPENDIX
IMMIGRATION ACT
| SECTION 2 Definitions 2. (1) In this Act, "conditional departure order" means a conditional departure order issued under subsection 28(1), paragraph 32.1(3)(b) or subsection 32.1(5) that has not become effective under subsection 28(2) or 32.1(6); "conditional deportation order" means a conditional deportation order made under subsection 32.1(2), (3) or (4), 73(2) or 74(1) or (3) that has not become effective under subsection 32.1(6); "conditional removal order" means a conditional departure order or a conditional deportation order; "departure order" means a departure order issued under subsection 27(4) or 32(7) and includes a conditional departure order that has become effective under subsection 28(2) or 32.1(6); "deportation order" means a deportation order made under subsection 32(2), (5) or (6), 37(5) or (6), 73(2) or 74(1) or (3) and includes (a) a deportation order made under the authority of (i) subsection 40(10) of the Immigration Act, 1976, chapter 52 of the Statutes of Canada, 1976-77, as it read immediately prior to July 16, 1984, or (ii) any immigration laws that were in force in Canada prior to April 10, 1978, (b) a conditional deportation order that has become effective under subsection 32.1(6), (c) a departure order that is deemed pursuant to subsection 32.02(1) to be a deportation order, (d) a departure notice that is deemed to be a deportation order pursuant to section 113 of An Act to amend the Immigration Act and other Acts in consequence thereof, chapter 49 of the Statutes of Canada, 1992, and (e) a conditional departure notice or a conditional exclusion order that becomes a deportation order pursuant to section 26 of An Act to amend the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Customs Act, assented to during the first session of the thirty-fifth Parliament; "exclusion order" means an exclusion order made under subsection 23(4) or (4.01), 32(5), 73(2) or 74(1) or (3); "removal order" means a departure order, an exclusion order or a deportation order; |
SECTION 2 Définitions 2.(1) Les définitions qui suivent s'appliquent à la présente loi. « _mesure d'interdiction de séjour conditionnelle_ » "conditional departure order" « _mesure d'interdiction de séjour conditionnelle_ » La mesure prévue soit au paragraphe 28(1) et qui n'est pas encore exécutoire aux termes du paragraphe 28(2), soit à l'alinéa 32.1(3)b) ou au paragraphe 32.1(5) et qui n'est pas encore exécutoire aux termes du paragraphe 32.1(6). ... « mesure d'expulsion conditionnelle » "conditional deportation order" « mesure d'expulsion conditionnelle » La mesure d'expulsion conditionnelle visée au paragraphe 32.1(2), (3) ou (4), 73(2) ou 74(1) ou (3) et qui n'est pas encore exécutoire aux termes du paragraphe 32.1(6). ... « _mesure de renvoi conditionnel_ » "conditional removal order" « _mesure de renvoi conditionnel_ » La mesure d'interdiction de séjour conditionnelle ou la mesure d'expulsion conditionnelle. ... "departure order" means a departure order issued under subsection 27(4) or 32(7) and includes a conditional departure order that has become effective under subsection 28(2) or 32.1(6); ... « mesure d'expulsion » "deportation order" « mesure d'expulsion » Mesure prise aux termes des paragraphes 32(2), (5) ou (6), 37(5) ou (6), 73(2) ou 74(1) ou (3). S'entend également_: a) de la mesure prise aux termes_: (i) soit du paragraphe 40(10) de la Loi sur l'immigration de 1976, chapitre 52 des Statuts du Canada de 1976-77, dans sa version antérieure à son abrogation le 16 juillet 1984, (ii) soit de toute autre loi d'immigration en vigueur au Canada avant le 10 avril 1978; b) de la mesure d'expulsion conditionnelle devenue exécutoire aux termes du paragraphe 32.1(6); c) de la mesure d'interdiction de séjour devenue une mesure d'expulsion conformément au paragraphe 32.02(1); d) de l'avis d'interdiction de séjour devenu une mesure d'expulsion par application de l'article 113 de la Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'immigration et d'autres lois en conséquence, chapitre 49 des Lois du Canada (1992); e) de l'avis d'interdiction de séjour conditionnel et de la mesure d'exclusion conditionnelle devenus une mesure d'expulsion par application de l'article 26 de la Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'immigration et la Loi sur la citoyenneté et modifiant la Loi sur les douanes en conséquence, sanctionnée au cours de la première session de la trente-cinquième législature. ... « _mesure d'exclusion_ » "exclusion order" « _mesure d'exclusion_ » Mesure prise aux termes des paragraphes 23(4) ou (4.01), 32(5), 73(2) ou 74(1) ou (3). ... « _mesure de renvoi_ » "removal order" « _mesure de renvoi_ » Mesure d'interdiction de séjour, d'exclusion ou d'expulsion. |
|
| SECTION 19 Inadmissible classes where entry permitted 19(2) No immigrant and, except as provided in subsection (3), no visitor shall be granted admission if the immigrant or visitor is a member of any of the following classes: (a) persons who have been convicted in Canada of an indictable offence, or of an offence for which the offender may be prosecuted by indictment or for which the offender is punishable on summary conviction, that may be punishable under any Act of Parliament by a maximum term of imprisonment of less than ten years, other than an offence designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act; (a.1) persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe (i) have been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence that may be punishable by way of indictment under any Act of Parliament by a maximum term of imprisonment of less than ten years, or (ii) have committed outside Canada an act or omission that constitutes an offence under the laws of the place where the act or omission occurred and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence that may be punishable by way of indictment under any Act of Parliament by a maximum term of imprisonment of less than ten years, except persons who have satisfied the Minister that they have rehabilitated themselves and that at least five years have elapsed since the expiration of any sentence imposed for the offence or since the commission of the act or omission, as the case may be; (b) persons who (i) have been convicted in Canada under any Act of Parliament of two or more summary conviction offences not arising out of a single occurrence, other than offences designated as contraventions under the Contraventions Act, (ii) there are reasonable grounds to believe have been convicted outside Canada of two or more offences, not arising out of a single occurrence, that, if committed in Canada, would constitute summary conviction offences under any Act of Parliament, or (iii) have been convicted in Canada under any Act of Parliament of a summary conviction offence, other than an offence designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act, and there are reasonable grounds to believe have been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute a summary conviction offence under any Act of Parliament where any part of the sentences imposed for the offences was served or to be served at any time during the five year period immediately preceding the day on which they seek admission to Canada; (c) other members of a family accompanying a member of that family who may not be granted admission or who is not otherwise authorized to come into Canada; or (d) persons who cannot or do not fulfil or comply with any of the conditions or requirements of this Act or the regulations or any orders or directions lawfully made or given under this Act or the regulations. |
SECTION 19 Autorisation de séjour à des personnes non admissibles 19(2) Appartiennent à une catégorie non admissible les immigrants et, sous réserve du paragraphe (3), les visiteurs qui : a) ont été déclarés coupables au Canada d'un acte criminel ou d'une infraction dont l'auteur peut être poursuivi par mise en accusation ou par procédure sommaire et qui peut être punissable, aux termes d'une loi fédérale, par mise en accusation, d'un emprisonnement maximal de moins de dix ans, à l'exception d'une infraction désignée à titre de contravention sous le régime de la Loi sur les contraventions; a.1) sont des personnes dont il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu'elles ont, à l'étranger : (i) soit été déclarées coupables d'une infraction qui, si elle était commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction qui pourrait être punissable, aux termes d'une loi fédérale, par mise en accusation, d'un emprisonnement maximal de moins de dix ans, sauf si elles peuvent justifier auprès du ministre de leur réadaptation et du fait qu'au moins cinq ans se sont écoulés depuis l'expiration de toute peine leur ayant été infligée pour l'infraction, (ii) soit commis un fait - acte ou omission - qui constitue une infraction dans le pays où il a été commis et qui, s'il était commis au Canada, constituerait une infraction qui pourrait être punissable, aux termes d'une loi fédérale, par mise en accusation, d'un emprisonnement maximal de moins de dix ans, sauf si elles peuvent justifier auprès du ministre de leur réadaptation et du fait qu'au moins cinq ans se sont écoulés depuis la commission du fait; b) sont des personnes : (i) soit qui ont été déclarées coupables au Canada d'au moins deux infractions qui sont punissables, aux termes d'une loi fédérale, sur déclaration de culpabilité par procédure sommaire et qui ne découlent pas des mêmes faits, à l'exception d'une infraction désignée à titre de contravention sous le régime de la Loi sur les contraventions, (ii) soit dont il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu'elles ont été déclarées coupables à l'étranger d'au moins deux infractions qui ne découlent pas des mêmes faits et qui, si elles étaient commises au Canada, constitueraient des infractions punissables par procédure sommaire aux termes d'une loi fédérale, (iii) soit qui ont été déclarées coupables au Canada d'une infraction qui est punissable, aux termes d'une loi fédérale, sur déclaration de culpabilité par procédure sommaire - autre qu'une infraction qualifiée de contravention en vertu de la Loi sur les contraventions - et dont il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu'elles ont été déclarées coupables à l'étranger d'une infraction qui, si elle était commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction punissable par procédure sommaire aux termes d'une loi fédérale, lorsque la totalité ou une partie de la peine infligée a été purgée ou devait l'être dans les cinq ans qui précèdent la date de leur demande d'admission; c) accompagnent un membre de leur famille qui ne peut être admis ou n'est pas par ailleurs autorisé à entrer au Canada; d) soit ne se conforment pas aux conditions prévues à la présente loi et à ses règlements ou aux mesures ou instructions qui en procèdent, soit ne peuvent le faire. |
|
| SECTION 20 Reports at port of entry 20. (1) Where an immigration officer is of the opinion that it would or may be contrary to this Act or the regulations to grant admission to a person examined by the officer or otherwise let that person come into Canada, the officer may detain or make an order to detain that person and shall (a) subject to subsection (2), report that person in writing to a senior immigration officer; or (b) allow that person to leave Canada forthwith. Temporary exclusion of persons arriving from U.S. (2) Where an immigration officer at a port of entry is of the opinion that it would or may be contrary to this Act or the regulations to grant admission to or otherwise let come into Canada a person who is arriving from the United States, the officer may, where a senior immigration officer to whom the officer would otherwise make a report pursuant to paragraph (1)(a) is not reasonably available, direct that person to return to the United States until such time as a senior immigration officer is available. |
SECTION 20 Rapports à l'agent principal 20. (1) L'agent d'immigration qui, après interrogatoire, estime que le fait d'admettre ou de laisser entrer l'intéressé au Canada contreviendrait ou pourrait contrevenir à la présente loi ou à ses règlements peut le retenir ou prendre une mesure à cet effet. Il est tenu : a) soit, sous réserve du paragraphe (2), de signaler son cas dans un rapport écrit, à un agent principal; b) soit de l'autoriser à quitter le Canada sans délai. Exclusion temporaire par l'agent d'immigration (2) Lorsqu'il estime que le fait d'admettre ou de laisser entrer au Canada une personne en provenance des États-Unis contreviendrait ou pourrait contrevenir à la présente loi ou à ses règlements, l'agent d'immigration en poste à un point d'entrée peut, s'il n'est pas en mesure d'en référer à l'agent principal auquel il ferait normalement rapport conformément à l'alinéa (1)a), ordonner à l'intéressé de retourner aux États-Unis et d'attendre que l'agent principal soit disponible pour examiner son cas. |
|
| SECTION 23 Exclusion order 23.(4) Subject to section 28, a senior immigration officer shall allow a person to leave Canada forthwith or make an exclusion order against the person where the senior immigration officer receives a report made pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(a) in respect of the person and the senior immigration officer is satisfied that (a) the person is a member of (i) the class of persons referred to in paragraph 19(1)(i), or (ii) the class of persons referred to in paragraph 19(2)(d) by reason of the fact that the person does not possess a valid and subsisting passport, visa or student or employment authorization and was not granted landing or was granted landing but later became subject to a removal order; and (b) the person is not a member of an inadmissible class other than an inadmissible class referred to in paragraph (a). Other powers of senior immigration officer (4.01) Subject to section 28, a senior immigration officer may allow a person to leave Canada forthwith, make an exclusion order against the person on the basis that the person is a member of either or both of the inadmissible classes described in paragraph (a) or, subject to subsections (4.3) and (5), cause an inquiry to be held as soon as is reasonably practicable concerning whether the person is a member of any or all of the inadmissible classes described in paragraph (a) or (b) where the senior immigration officer receives a report made pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(a) in respect of the person and is satisfied that (a) the person is a member of (i) the inadmissible class described in paragraph 19(1)(i), or (ii) the inadmissible class described in paragraph 19(2)(d) by reason of the fact that the person does not possess a valid and subsisting passport, visa or student or employment authorization and was not granted landing or was granted landing but later became subject to a removal order; and (b) the person is a member of an inadmissible class other than an inadmissible class referred to in paragraph (a). |
SECTION 23 Mesure d'exclusion 23.(4) Sous réserve de l'article 28, l'agent principal prend une mesure d'exclusion à l'encontre de la personne qui fait l'objet du rapport ou l'autorise à quitter le Canada sans délai s'il est convaincu_: a) qu'elle appartient aux catégories non admissibles suivantes ou à l'une d'entre elles_: (i) la catégorie non admissible aux termes de l'alinéa 19(1)i), (ii) la catégorie non admissible aux termes de l'alinéa 19(2)d) parce qu'elle ne détient pas, selon le cas, un passeport, un visa ou une autorisation d'étudier ou d'occuper un emploi au Canada en cours de validité, sauf si le droit d'établissement lui a été octroyé et qu'elle n'a pas, par la suite, fait l'objet d'une mesure de renvoi; b) qu'elle n'appartient à aucune autre catégorie non admissible. Autres pouvoirs de l'agent principal (4.01) Sous réserve de l'article 28, l'agent principal soit prend une mesure d'exclusion fondée sur l'alinéa a) contre la personne visée, soit fait, sous réserve des paragraphes (4.3) et (5), procéder à une enquête, dès que les circonstances le permettent, pour déterminer si elle tombe sous le coup des alinéas a) ou b), soit l'autorise à quitter le Canada sans délai s'il est convaincu qu'elle appartient à la fois_: a) aux catégories non admissibles suivantes ou à l'une d'entre elles_: (i) la catégorie non admissible aux termes de l'alinéa 19(1)i), (ii) la catégorie non admissible aux termes de l'alinéa 19(2)d) parce qu'elle ne détient pas, selon le cas, un passeport, un visa ou une autorisation d'étudier ou d'occuper un emploi au Canada en cours de validité, sauf si le droit d'établissement lui a été octroyé et qu'elle n'a pas, par la suite, fait l'objet d'une mesure de renvoi; b) à une autre catégorie non admissible. 23(4.1) |
|
| SECTION 27 Referral of report 27(3) Subject to subsection (3.1) and any order or direction of the Minister, the Deputy Minister, on receiving a report pursuant to subsection (1) or (2), shall, if the Deputy Minister considers it appropriate to do so in the circumstances, forward a copy of that report to a senior immigration officer and may (a) direct that a determination be made with respect to any or all of the allegations mentioned in the report where the person is a person described in (i) paragraph (2)(a) by reason of paragraph 19(2)(d), (ii) paragraph (2)(e) by reason of paragraph 26(1)(c), or (iii) paragraph (2)(h) or (k); or (b) in any case, direct that an inquiry be held. Departure order 27(4) Subject to section 28, where a senior immigration officer receives a report and a direction made pursuant to paragraph (3)(a) in respect of a person, or where a person has been arrested pursuant to subsection 103(2), the senior immigration officer shall (a) allow the person to remain in Canada if it would not be contrary to this Act or the regulations to allow the person to remain in Canada; or (b) make a departure order against the person if the senior immigration officer is satisfied that the person is a person described in (i) paragraph (2)(a) by reason of paragraph 19(2)(d), (ii) paragraph (2)(e) by reason of paragraph 26(1)(c), or (iii) paragraph (2)(h) or (k). |
SECTION 27 Transmission du rapport 27(3) Sous réserve du paragraphe (3.1) et des arrêtés ou instructions du ministre, le sous-ministre, s'il l'estime justifié dans les circonstances, transmet à un agent principal un exemplaire du rapport visé aux paragraphes (1) ou (2) et_: a) dans le cas où l'intéressé est visé soit à l'alinéa (2)a), pour le motif prévu à l'alinéa 19(2)d), soit à l'alinéa (2)e), pour le motif prévu à l'alinéa 26(1)c), soit à l'un des alinéas (2)h) ou k), il peut ordonner à l'agent principal de prendre une décision sur tel fait allégué dans le rapport; b) dans tous les cas, le sous-ministre peut ordonner à l'agent principal de faire tenir une enquête. 27(3.1) Mesure d'interdiction de séjour 27(4) Sous réserve de l'article 28, dans le cas où une personne a fait l'objet de l'ordre prévu à l'alinéa (3)a) ou a été arrêtée en vertu du paragraphe 103(2), l'agent principal doit : a) autoriser la personne à demeurer au Canada si l'octroi de cette autorisation ne contrevient pas à la présente loi ou à ses règlements;
b) prendre contre elle une mesure d'interdiction de séjour s'il est convaincu qu'elle est visée soit à l'alinéa (2)a), pour le motif prévu à l'alinéa 19(2)d), soit à l'alinéa (2)e), pour le motif prévu à l'alinéa 26(1)c), soit à l'un des alinéas (2)h) ou k). |
|
| SECTION 28 Conditional departure order 28. (1) Where a senior immigration officer is of the opinion that a person who claims to be a Convention refugee is eligible to have their claim referred to the Refugee Division and is a person in respect of whom the senior immigration officer would, but for this section, have made an exclusion order under subsection 23(4) or (4.01) or a departure order under subsection 27(4), the senior immigration officer shall make a conditional departure order against the person. When conditional order becomes effective (2) No conditional departure order made pursuant to subsection (1) against a person who claims to be a Convention refugee is effective unless and until (a) the person withdraws the claim to be a Convention refugee; (a.1) the person is determined by a senior immigration officer not to be eligible to make a claim to be a Convention refugee and has been so notified; (b) the person is declared by the Refugee Division to have abandoned the claim to be a Convention refugee and has been so notified; (c) the person is determined by the Refugee Division not to be a Convention refugee and has been so notified; or (d) the person is determined pursuant to subsection 46.07(1.1) or (2) not to have a right under subsection 4(2.1) to remain in Canada and has been so notified. |
SECTION 28 Mesure d'interdiction de séjour conditionnelle 28.(1) S'il conclut à la recevabilité de la revendication du statut de réfugié au sens de la Convention de la personne à l'encontre de laquelle il prendrait une mesure d'exclusion au titre des paragraphes 23(4) ou (4.01) ou une mesure d'interdiction de séjour au titre du paragraphe 27(4), l'agent principal prend contre elle une mesure d'interdiction de séjour conditionnelle. Moment où la mesure devient exécutoire (2) La mesure d'interdiction de séjour conditionnelle ne devient exécutoire que si se réalise l'une des conditions suivantes_: a) la personne retire sa revendication du statut de réfugié au sens de la Convention; a.1) sa revendication a été jugée irrecevable par l'agent principal, qui le lui a dûment notifié; b) son désistement a été constaté par la section du statut, qui le lui a dûment notifié; c) la section du statut lui a refusé le statut de réfugié au sens de la Convention et lui a dûment notifié le refus; d) il a été déterminé conformément aux paragraphes 46.07(1.1) ou (2) que la personne n'avait pas le droit que confère le paragraphe 4(2.1) de demeurer au Canada et la personne en a été avisée. |
|
| SECTION 32 Deportation or departure of other than permanent residents 32.(6) Where an adjudicator decides that a person who is the subject of an inquiry is a person described in subsection 27(2), the adjudicator shall, subject to subsections (7) and 32.1(5), make a deportation order against that person. Departure of other than permanent residents32.(7) Where the person referred to in subsection (6) is a person other than a person described in paragraph 19(1)(c), (c.1), (c.2), (d), (e), (f), (g), (j), (k) or (l) or 27(2)(h) or (i), the adjudicator may, subject to subsection 32.1(5), make a departure order against the person if the adjudicator is satisfied that the person should be allowed to return to Canada without the written consent of the Minister and that the person will leave Canada within the applicable period specified in the regulations for the purposes of subsection 32.02(1). |
SECTION 32 Expulsion à l'exception des résidents permanents 32.(6) S'il conclut que l'intéressé relève d'un des cas visés par le paragraphe 27(2), l'arbitre, sous réserve des paragraphes (7) et 32.1(5), prend une mesure d'expulsion à son endroit. Interdiction de séjour 32.(7) Dans les cas prévus au paragraphe (6) et où l'intéressé n'appartient pas à l'une des catégories visées aux alinéas 19(1)c), c.1), c.2), d), e), f), g), j), k) ou l) ou 27(2)h) ou i), l'arbitre, sous réserve du paragraphe 32.1(5), peut prendre à l'encontre de l'intéressé une mesure d'interdiction de séjour s'il est convaincu que celui-ci devrait pouvoir revenir au Canada sans l'autorisation écrite du ministre et qu'il quittera le Canada avant l'expiration de la période réglementaire applicable prévue au paragraphe 32.02(1). |
|
| SECTION 32.01 Examination of person subject to departure order 32.01 A person against whom a departure order has been made shall appear or be brought before an immigration officer so that the immigration officer can verify the person's departure from Canada and issue a certificate of departure in the prescribed form to the person. |
SECTION 32.01 Obligation de la personne visée par la mesure d'interdiction de séjour 32.01 La personne visée par la mesure d'interdiction de séjour doit se présenter ou être amenée devant un agent d'immigration afin de permettre à celui-ci de constater son départ et de lui remettre l'attestation réglementaire correspondante. |
|
| SECTION 32.02 Where no certificate issued 32.02 (1) Where no certificate of departure is issued within the applicable period specified in the regulations to a person against whom a departure order has been made, the departure order is deemed to be a deportation order made against the person. Deemed deportation (2) Where by the operation of subsection (1) a departure order made against a person is deemed to be a deportation order and the person is at that time no longer in Canada, the person is deemed to have been deported from Canada.Exception (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to any person who is detained under this Act at any time after (a) where a conditional departure order was made against the person, the day on which the conditional departure order became effective, or (b) where a departure order was made against the person, the day on which the departure order was made, and who is still in detention under this Act at the expiration of the applicable period specified in the regulations for the purposes of subsection (1). |
SECTION 32.02 Conséquence du défaut 32.02 (1) S'il ne lui est pas délivré d'attestation de départ au cours de la période réglementaire applicable, la mesure d'interdiction de séjour dont est frappé l'intéressé devient une mesure d'expulsion. Assimilation (2) Dans le cas où la mesure d'interdiction de séjour est devenue une mesure d'expulsion après son départ du Canada, l'intéressé est réputé avoir été expulsé. Exception (3) Le paragraphe (1) ne s'applique pas à quiconque est détenu en vertu de la présente loi après, selon le cas, soit la date de la prise de la mesure d'interdiction de séjour, soit celle où la mesure d'interdiction de séjour conditionnelle est devenue exécutoire, et qui se trouve encore en détention en vertu de la présente loi à la date d'expiration de la période réglementaire applicable prévue au paragraphe (1). |
|
| SECTION 32.1 Definition of "claimant" 32.1 (1) In this section, "claimant" means a person who claims to be a Convention refugee and whose claim has been referred (a) to a senior immigration officer for a determination of whether the person is eligible to make such a claim; or (b) to the Refugee Division for a determination of the claim. Where claimant is a permanent resident (2) Where an adjudicator decides that a claimant who is the subject of an inquiry is a permanent resident described in subsection 27(1), the adjudicator shall, subject to subsection (2.1), make a conditional deportation order against the claimant. Conditional departure order (2.1) Where a claimant referred to in subsection (2) is a person described in paragraph 27(1)(b), the adjudicator may make a conditional departure order against the claimant if the adjudicator is satisfied that the claimant should be allowed to return to Canada without the written consent of the Minister and that the claimant will leave Canada within the applicable period specified in the regulations for the purposes of subsection 32.02(1). Where claimant seeking admission (3) Where an adjudicator decides that a claimant who is the subject of an inquiry is a person who, at the time of the claimant's examination, was seeking admission and is a member of an inadmissible class, the adjudicator shall (a) make a conditional deportation order against the claimant if the claimant is a member of an inadmissible class described in paragraph 19(1)(c), (c.1), (c.2), (d), (e), (f), (g), (j), (k) or (l) or 19(2)(a), (a.1) or (b); or (b) make a conditional departure order against the claimant if the claimant is a member of an inadmissible class other than an inadmissible class referred to in paragraph (a). Where claimant not a permanent resident (4) Where an adjudicator decides that a claimant who is the subject of an inquiry is a person described in subsection 27(2), the adjudicator shall, subject to subsection (5), make a conditional deportation order against the claimant. Conditional departure order (5) Where the claimant referred to in subsection (4) is a person other than a person described in paragraph 19(1)(c), (c.1), (c.2), (d), (e), (f), (g), (j), (k) or (l) or 27(2)(h) or (i), the adjudicator may make a conditional departure order against the claimant if the adjudicator is satisfied that the person should be allowed to return to Canada without the written consent of the Minister. When conditional order becomes effective (6) No conditional removal order made against a claimant is effective unless and until (a) the claimant withdraws the claim to be a Convention refugee; (a.1) the claimant is determined by a senior immigration officer not to be eligible to make a claim to be a Convention refugee and has been so notified; (b) the claimant is declared by the Refugee Division to have abandoned the claim to be a Convention refugee and has been so notified; (c) the claimant is determined by the Refugee Division not to be a Convention refugee and has been so notified; or (d) the claimant is determined pursuant to subsection 46.07(2) not to have a right under subsection 4(2.1) to remain in Canada and has been so notified. |
SECTION 32.1 Définition de « _demandeur de statut_ » 32.1 (1) Au présent article, « _demandeur de statut_ » désigne la personne qui revendique le statut de réfugié au sens de la Convention et dont la revendication est déférée soit à l'agent principal pour décision sur sa recevabilité, soit à la section du statut pour décision sur la reconnaissance à la personne du statut de réfugié au sens de la Convention. Cas où le demandeur de statut est un résident permanent (2) S'il conclut que le demandeur de statut faisant l'objet d'une enquête est un résident permanent se trouvant dans l'une des situations visées au paragraphe 27(1), l'arbitre, sous réserve du paragraphe (2.1), prend une mesure d'expulsion conditionnelle contre lui. Mesure d'interdiction de séjour conditionnelle (2.1) Dans le cas où la personne visée au paragraphe (2) tombe sous le coup de l'alinéa 27(1)b), l'arbitre peut prendre contre elle une mesure d'interdiction de séjour conditionnelle s'il est convaincu que la personne devrait être autorisée à revenir au Canada sans l'autorisation écrite du ministre et qu'elle quittera le Canada dans la période réglementaire applicable prévue au paragraphe 32.02(1). Cas où il demande l'admission (3) S'il constate que le demandeur de statut faisant l'objet d'une enquête avait demandé l'admission au moment de l'interrogatoire et conclut qu'il fait partie d'une catégorie non admissible, l'arbitre_: a) prend une mesure d'expulsion conditionnelle s'il s'agit d'une catégorie non admissible visée aux alinéas 19(1)c), c.1), c.2), d), e), f), g), j), k) ou l) ou 19(2)a), a.1) ou b); b) prend une mesure d'interdiction de séjour conditionnelle s'il s'agit d'une autre catégorie non admissible. Cas où il n'est pas un résident permanent (4) S'il conclut que le demandeur de statut faisant l'objet d'une enquête relève d'un des cas visés par le paragraphe 27(2), l'arbitre, sous réserve du paragraphe (5), prend une mesure d'expulsion conditionnelle à son endroit. Mesure d'interdiction de séjour conditionnelle (5) Dans les cas prévus au paragraphe (4) et où le demandeur de statut n'appartient pas à l'une des catégories visées aux alinéas 19(1)c), c.1), c.2), d), e), f), g), j), k) ou l) ou 27(2)h) ou i), l'arbitre peut prendre contre le demandeur de statut une mesure d'interdiction de séjour conditionnelle s'il est convaincu que celui-ci devrait pouvoir revenir au Canada sans l'autorisation écrite du ministre. Moment où une mesure devient exécutoire (6) La mesure de renvoi conditionnel ne devient exécutoire que si se réalise l'une ou l'autre des conditions suivantes_: a) le demandeur de statut renonce à sa revendication du statut de réfugié au sens de la Convention; a.1) sa revendication a été jugée irrecevable par l'agent principal, qui le lui a dûment notifié; b) son désistement a été constaté par la section du statut, qui le lui a dûment notifié; c) la section du statut lui a refusé le statut de réfugié au sens de la Convention et lui a dûment notifié le refus; d) il a été déterminé conformément au paragraphe 46.07(2) que le demandeur de statut n'avait pas le droit que confère le paragraphe 4(2.1) de demeurer au Canada et le demandeur en a été avisé |
|
| SECTION 48 Time of execution 48. Subject to sections 49 and 50, a removal order shall be executed as soon as reasonably practicable. |
SECTION 48 Délai d'exécution 48. Sous réserve des articles 49 et 50, la mesure de renvoi est exécutée dès que les circonstances le permettent. |
|
| SECTION 49 Stay of execution 49. (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), the execution of a removal order made against a person is stayed (a) in any case where the person against whom the order was made has a right of appeal to the Appeal Division, at the request of that person until the time provided for the filing of the appeal has elapsed; (b) in any case where an appeal from the order has been filed with the Appeal Division, until the appeal has been heard and disposed of or has been declared by the Appeal Division to be abandoned; (c) subject to paragraphs (d) and (f), in any case where a person has been determined by the Refugee Division not to be a Convention refugee or a person's appeal from the order has been dismissed by the Appeal Division, (i) where the person against whom the order was made files an application for leave to commence a judicial review proceeding under the Federal Court Act or signifies in writing to an immigration officer an intention to file such an application, until the application for leave has been heard and disposed of or the time normally limited for filing an application for leave has elapsed and, where leave is granted, until the judicial review proceeding has been heard and disposed of, (ii) in any case where the person has filed with the Federal Court of Appeal an appeal of a decision of the Federal Court - Trial Division where a judge of that Court has at the time of rendering judgment certified in accordance with subsection 83(1) that a serious question of general importance was involved and has stated that question, or signifies in writing to an immigration officer an intention to file a notice of appeal to commence such an appeal, until the appeal has been heard and disposed of or the time normally limited for filing the appeal has elapsed, as the case may be, and (iii) in any case where the person files an application for leave to appeal or signifies in writing to an immigration officer an intention to file an application for leave to appeal a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal on an appeal referred to in subparagraph (ii) to the Supreme Court of Canada, until the application for leave to appeal has been heard and disposed of or the time normally limited for filing an application for leave to appeal has elapsed and, where leave to appeal is granted, until the appeal has been heard and disposed of or the time normally limited for filing the appeal has elapsed, as the case may be; (d) in any case where a person who has claimed to be a Convention refugee or whose appeal has been dismissed by the Appeal Division has been determined by an adjudicator to be a person described in paragraph 19(1)(c), (c.1), (c.2), (d), (e), (f), (g), (j), (k) or (l), 19(2)(a), (a.1) or (b), 27(1)(a), (a.1), (a.2), (a.3), (d), (g) or (h) or 27(2)(d), until seven days have elapsed from the time the order was made or became effective, whichever is later, unless the person agrees that the removal order may be executed before the expiration of that seven day period; (e) in any case where a person has been determined to be not eligible to have a claim to be a Convention refugee referred to the Refugee Division, until seven days have elapsed from the time the order was made or became effective, whichever is later, unless the person agrees that the removal order may be executed before the expiration of that seven day period; and (f) in any case where a person has been determined pursuant to subsection 69.1(9.1) not to have a credible basis for the claim to be a Convention refugee, until seven days have elapsed from the time the order became effective, unless the person agrees that the removal order may be executed before the expiration of that seven day period. Exception (1.1) Subsection (1) does not apply to (a) a person residing or sojourning in the United States or St. Pierre and Miquelon who is the subject of a report made pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(a); or (b) a person who has been determined to be not eligible to make a claim to be a Convention refugee by reason of paragraph 46.01(1)(b) and who is to be removed to a country with which the Minister has entered into an agreement under section 108.1 for sharing the responsibility for examining refugee claims. |
SECTION 49 Sursis à l'exécution 49. (1) Sauf dans les cas mentionnés au paragraphe (1.1), il est sursis à l'exécution d'une mesure de renvoi: a) à la demande de l'intéressé - s'il a un droit d'appel devant la section d'appel - jusqu'à l'expiration du délai de présentation de l'appel; b) en cas d'appel, jusqu'à ce que la section d'appel ait rendu sa décision ou déclaré qu'il y a eu désistement d'appel; c) sous réserve des alinéas d) et f), dans le cas d'une personne qui s'est vu refuser le statut de réfugié au sens de la Convention par la section du statut ou dont l'appel a été rejeté par la section d'appel : (i) si l'intéressé présente une demande d'autorisation relative à la présentation d'une demande de contrôle judiciaire aux termes de la Loi sur la Cour fédérale ou notifie par écrit à un agent d'immigration son intention de le faire, jusqu'au prononcé du jugement sur la demande d'autorisation ou la demande de contrôle judiciaire, ou l'expiration du délai normal de demande d'autorisation, selon le cas, (ii) si l'intéressé interjette un appel à la Cour d'appel fédérale du jugement de la Section de première instance de la Cour fédérale, dans le cas où celle-ci a certifié conformément au paragraphe 83(1) que l'affaire soulève une question grave de portée générale et a énoncé celle-ci, ou notifie par écrit à un agent d'immigration son intention de le faire, jusqu'au prononcé du jugement sur l'appel ou l'expiration du délai normal d'appel, selon le cas, (iii) si l'intéressé dépose une demande d'autorisation d'en appeler à la Cour suprême du Canada du jugement de la Cour d'appel fédérale sur l'appel visé au sous-alinéa (ii), ou notifie par écrit à un agent d'immigration son intention de le faire, jusqu'au jugement de la Cour suprême sur la demande d'autorisation ou l'appel ou l'expiration du délai normal de demande d'autorisation ou d'appel, selon le cas; d) dans le cas d'une personne qui a revendiqué le statut de réfugié au sens de la Convention ou dont l'appel a été rejeté par la section d'appel et qui, selon la décision de l'arbitre, est visée à l'un des alinéas 19(1)c), c.1), c.2), d),e), f), g), j), k) ou l), 19(2)a), a.1) ou b), 27(1)a), a.1), a.2), a.3), d), g) ou h) ou 27(2)d), pendant sept jours à compter du moment où la mesure de renvoi a été prise ou est devenue exécutoire, selon le dernier de ces moments, à moins que l'intéressé ne consente à l'exécution avant l'expiration de cette période; e) en cas d'irrecevabilité de la revendication du statut de réfugié au sens de la Convention de l'intéressé, pendant sept jours à compter du moment où la mesure de renvoi a été prise ou est devenue exécutoire, selon le dernier de ces moments, à moins que l'intéressé ne consente à l'exécution avant l'expiration de cette période; f) dans le cas où la section du statut a décidé conformément au paragraphe 69.1(9.1) que la revendication n'a pas un minimum de fondement, pendant sept jours à compter du moment où la mesure est devenue exécutoire, à moins que l'intéressé ne consente à l'exécution avant l'expiration de cette période. Exception (1.1) Le sursis d'exécution ne s'applique pas dans les cas suivants : a) l'intéressé fait l'objet du rapport prévu à l'alinéa 20(1)a) et réside ou séjourne aux États-Unis ou à Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon; b) la revendication a été jugée irrecevable au titre de l'alinéa 46.01(1)b) et l'intéressé doit être renvoyé dans un pays avec lequel le ministre a conclu un accord en vertu de l'article 108.1 en vue du partage de la responsabilité de l'examen des revendications du statut de réfugié au sens de la Convention. |
|
| SECTION 50 Execution stayed where other proceedings 50. (1) A removal order shall not be executed where (a) the execution of the order would directly result in a contravention of any other order made by any judicial body or officer in Canada; or (b) the presence in Canada of the person against whom the order was made is required in any criminal proceedings and the Minister stays the execution of the order pending the completion of those proceedings. Not to be executed until after sentence completed (2) A removal order that has been made against a person who was, at the time it was made, an inmate of a penitentiary, jail, reformatory or prison or becomes an inmate of such an institution before the order is executed shall not be executed until the person has completed the sentence or term of imprisonment imposed, in whole or as reduced by a statute or other law or by an act of clemency. |
SECTION 50 Sursis motivé par d'autres procédures 50. (1) La mesure de renvoi ne peut être exécutée dans les cas suivants : a) l'exécution irait directement à l'encontre d'une autre décision rendue au Canada par une autorité judiciaire; b) la présence au Canada de l'intéressé étant requise dans le cadre d'une procédure pénale, le ministre ordonne d'y surseoir jusqu'à la conclusion de celle-ci. Sursis dans le cas des détenus (2) L'incarcération de l'intéressé dans un pénitencier, une prison ou une maison de correction, antérieurement à la prise de la mesure de renvoi ou à son exécution, suspend l'exécution de celle-ci jusqu'à l'expiration de la peine, compte tenu des réductions légales de peine et des mesures de clémence. |
|
| SECTION 52 Voluntary departure 52.(1) Unless otherwise directed by the Minister, a person against whom an exclusion order or a deportation order is made may be allowed to leave Canada voluntarily and to select the country for which that person wishes to depart. Place to which removed (2) Where a person is not allowed to leave Canada voluntarily and to select the country for which he wishes to depart pursuant to subsection (1), that person shall, subject to subsection (3), be removed from Canada to (a) the country from which that person came to Canada; (b) the country in which that person last permanently resided before he came to Canada; (c) the country of which that person is a national or citizen; or (d) the country of that person's birth. Idem (3) Where a person is to be removed from Canada and no country referred to in subsection (2) is willing to receive him, the person, with the approval of the Minister, or the Minister, may select any other country that is willing to receive that person within a reasonable time as the country to which that person shall be removed. Idem (4) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), where a removal order is made against a person described in paragraph 19(1)(j), the person shall be removed from Canada to a country selected by the Minister that is willing to receive the person. |
SECTION 52 Départ avant exécution forcée 52.(1) Sauf instruction contraire du ministre, quiconque est frappé d'une mesure d'exclusion ou d'une mesure d'expulsion peut être autorisé à quitter le Canada avant l'exécution forcée de celle-ci et à choisir son pays de destination. Pays de destination (2) Dans tous les autres cas, l'individu est, sous réserve du paragraphe (3), renvoyé_: a) soit dans le pays d'où il est arrivé; b) soit dans le pays où il avait sa résidence permanente avant de venir au Canada; c) soit dans le pays dont il est le ressortissant; d) soit dans son pays natal. Idem (3) Si aucun de ces pays ne veut le recevoir, l'individu peut, avec l'agrément du ministre, choisir comme pays de destination tout autre pays disposé à le recevoir dans un délai raisonnable. Ce choix appartient également au ministre. Idem (4) Par dérogation aux paragraphes (1) et (2), l'individu faisant l'objet d'une mesure de renvoi et appartenant à la catégorie non admissible visée à l'alinéa 19(1)j) est renvoyé dans un pays choisi par le ministre et disposé à le recevoir. |
|
| SECTION 52.1 Return to Canada 52.1 Where a removal order, other than a removal order that may be appealed to the Appeal Division, has been made against a person and the person is removed from or otherwise leaves Canada, the person may, at the expense of the Minister, return to Canada, if the person is subsequently successful in having the removal order set aside. |
SECTION 52.1 Rentrée au Canada 52.1 La personne qui est renvoyée du Canada ou le quitte à la suite d'une mesure de renvoi qui ne peut faire l'objet d'un appel devant la section d'appel peut, aux frais du ministre, revenir au Canada si elle réussit par la suite à faire annuler la mesure. |
|
| SECTION 54 Where no execution of removal order 54. (1) Where a person against whom a removal order is made is removed from or otherwise leaves Canada, the order shall be deemed not to have been executed if the person is not granted lawful permission to be in any other country, and that person may, notwithstanding subsection 55(1), come into Canada without the consent of the Minister. |
SECTION 54 Non-exécution de la mesure de renvoi 54. (1) La mesure de renvoi est réputée n'avoir jamais été exécutée si la personne qui en fait l'objet a été renvoyée ou a quitté le Canada mais n'a pu obtenir la permission de séjourner dans aucun autre pays. Cette personne peut, par dérogation au paragraphe 55(1), revenir au Canada sans l'autorisation du ministre. |
|
| SECTION 55 Effect of deportation order 55. (1) Subject to section 56, where a deportation order is made against a person, the person shall not, after he is removed from or otherwise leaves Canada, come into Canada without the written consent of the Minister unless an appeal from the order has been allowed. Effect of exclusion order (2) Subject to section 56, where an exclusion order is made against a person, other than a person who has claimed to be a Convention Refugee, the person shall not, after the person is removed from or otherwise leaves Canada, come into Canada without the written consent of the Minister during the twelve month period immediately following the day on which that person is removed from or otherwise leaves Canada unless an appeal from the order has been allowed. Person may return to Canada (3) A person against whom a departure order has been made (a) who (i) complies with section 32.01, is issued a certificate of departure under that section and leaves Canada voluntarily before the expiration of the applicable period specified for the purposes of subsection 32.02(1), or (ii) is removed from Canada before the expiration of that period and has been issued a certificate of departure under section 32.01, or (b) who is detained before the expiration of the applicable period specified for the purposes of subsection 32.02(1), who is still in detention under this Act at the expiration of that period and who is subsequently removed from Canada, may, if the person otherwise meets the requirements of this Act and the regulations, return to Canada without the written consent of the Minister. |
SECTION 55 Mesure d'expulsion 55. (1) Sous réserve de l'article 56, quiconque fait l'objet d'une mesure d'expulsion ne peut plus revenir au Canada sans l'autorisation écrite du ministre, sauf si la mesure est annulée en appel. Mesure d'exclusion (2) Sous réserve de l'article 56, la personne qui fait l'objet d'une mesure d'exclusion, à l'exception de la personne qui a revendiqué le statut de réfugié au sens de la Convention, ne peut plus, sans l'autorisation écrite du ministre, revenir au Canada dans les douze mois suivant son départ du Canada, sauf si la mesure est annulée en appel. Mesure d'interdiction de séjour (3) Peuvent revenir au Canada sans l'autorisation écrite du ministre, si elles satisfont aux exigences de la présente loi et de ses règlements, les personnes suivantes_: a) celles qui font l'objet d'une mesure d'interdiction de séjour et qui quittent volontairement le Canada ou en sont renvoyées, conformément à l'article 32.01, avant l'expiration de la période réglementaire applicable prévue au paragraphe 32.02(1); b) celles qui, ayant fait l'objet d'une mesure d'interdiction de séjour, sont en détention avant la date d'expiration de cette période, se trouvent encore en détention en vertu de la présente loi à cette date et sont par la suite renvoyées du Canada. |
|
| SECTION 55.1 Repayment of costs of deportation 55.1 A person to whom a departure order is issued that is deemed under section 32.02 to be a deportation order and who is subsequently removed from Canada shall not come into Canada unless the person has paid to Her Majesty the removal costs prescribed under regulations made pursuant to paragraph 114(1)(r) or, in the absence of any such regulations, has reimbursed Her Majesty for any costs incurred by Her Majesty in deporting the person. |
SECTION 55.1 Remboursement des frais 55.1 Quiconque fait l'objet d'une mesure d'interdiction de séjour assimilée, en vertu de l'article 32.02, à une mesure d'expulsion et est effectivement renvoyé du Canada par la suite ne peut être réadmis avant d'avoir_: a) soit payé à Sa Majesté les frais de renvoi prévus par les règlements d'application de l'alinéa 114(1)r); b) soit, à défaut de règlement, remboursé à Sa Majesté les frais exposés par celle-ci à l'occasion de son expulsion. |
|
| SECTION 103 Warrant for arrest 103. (1) The Deputy Minister or a senior immigration officer may issue a warrant for the arrest and detention of any person where (a) an examination or inquiry is to be held, a decision is to be made pursuant to subsection 27(4) or a removal order or conditional removal order has been made with respect to the person; and (b) in the opinion of the Deputy Minister or that officer, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person poses a danger to the public or would not appear for the examination, inquiry or proceeding in relation to the decision or for removal from Canada. Arrest without warrant 103(2) Every peace officer in Canada, whether appointed under the laws of Canada or of any province or municipality thereof, and every immigration officer may, without the issue of a warrant, an order or a direction for arrest or detention, arrest and detain or arrest and make an order to detain (a) for an inquiry, or for a determination by a senior immigration officer under subsection 27(4), any person who on reasonable grounds is suspected of being a person referred to in paragraph 27(2)(b), (e), (f), (g) or (h), or (b) for removal from Canada, any person against whom a removal order has been made that is to be executed, where, in the opinion of the officer, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person poses a danger to the public or would not appear for the inquiry or the determination or for removal from Canada. Detention and release from detention by adjudicator 103(3) Where an inquiry is to be held or is to be continued with respect to a person or a removal order or conditional removal order has been made against a person, an adjudicator may make an order for (a) the release from detention of the person, subject to such terms and conditions as the adjudicator deems appropriate in the circumstances, including the payment of a security deposit or the posting of a performance bond; (b) the detention of the person where, in the opinion of the adjudicator, the person is likely to pose a danger to the public or is not likely to appear for the inquiry or its continuation or for removal from Canada; or (c) the imposition of such terms and conditions as the adjudicator deems appropriate in the circumstances, including the payment of a security deposit or the posting of a performance bond. Detention and release from detention by senior immigration officer 103(3.1) Where an exclusion order, a departure order or a conditional departure order has been made by a senior immigration officer against a person, a senior immigration officer may make an order (a) for the release from detention of the person, subject to such terms and conditions as the senior immigration officer deems appropriate in the circumstances, including the payment of a security deposit or the posting of a performance bond; (b) for the detention of the person where, in the opinion of the senior immigration officer, the person is likely to pose a danger to the public or is not likely to appear for removal from Canada; or (c) imposing on the person such terms and conditions as the senior immigration officer deems appropriate in the circumstances, including the payment of a security deposit or the posting of a performance bond. Notification of detention for examination or inquiry 103(4) Where any person is detained for an examination or inquiry pursuant to this section, the person who detains or orders the detention of that person shall forthwith notify a senior immigration officer of the detention and the reasons therefor. Release from detention by senior immigration officer 103(5) A senior immigration officer may, within forty-eight hours from the time when a person is placed in detention pursuant to this Act, order that the person be released from detention subject to such terms and conditions as the officer deems appropriate in the circumstances, including the payment of a security deposit or the posting of a performance bond. Review of decision for detention 103(6) Where any person is detained pursuant to this Act for an examination, inquiry or removal and the examination, inquiry or removal does not take place within forty-eight hours after that person is first placed in detention, or where a decision has not been made pursuant to subsection 27(4) within that period, that person shall be brought before an adjudicator forthwith and the reasons for the continued detention shall be reviewed, and thereafter that person shall be brought before an adjudicator at least once during the seven days immediately following the expiration of the forty-eight hour period and thereafter at least once during each thirty day period following each previous review, at which times the reasons for continued detention shall be reviewed. Release from detention by adjudicator 103(7) Where an adjudicator who conducts a review pursuant to subsection (6) is satisfied that the person in detention is not likely to pose a danger to the public and is likely to appear for an examination, inquiry or removal, the adjudicator shall order that the person be released from detention subject to such terms and conditions as the adjudicator deems appropriate in the circumstances, including the payment of a security deposit or the posting of a performance bond. Retaking into custody 103(8) Where an adjudicator has ordered that a person be released from detention pursuant to paragraph (3)(a) or subsection (7), that adjudicator or any other adjudicator may at any time thereafter order that the person be retaken into custody and held in detention if the adjudicator becomes satisfied that the person is likely to pose a danger to the public or is not likely to appear for an examination, inquiry or removal. |
SECTION 103 Mandat d'arrestation 103. (1) Le sous-ministre ou l'agent principal peut lancer un mandat d'arrestation contre toute personne qui doit faire l'objet d'un interrogatoire, d'une enquête ou d'une décision de l'agent principal aux termes du paragraphe 27(4), ou qui est frappée par une mesure de renvoi ou de renvoi conditionnel, lorsqu'il croit, pour des motifs raisonnables, qu'elle constitue une menace pour la sécurité publique ou qu'elle ne comparaîtra pas, ou n'obtempérera pas à la mesure de renvoi. Arrestation sans mandat 103(2) L'agent de la paix, qu'il soit nommé en vertu d'une loi fédérale ou provinciale ou d'un règlement municipal, et l'agent d'immigration peuvent, sans mandat, ordre ou instruction à cet effet, arrêter et garder ou arrêter et faire garder_: a) aux fins d'enquête ou d'une décision de l'agent principal aux termes du paragraphe 27(4), toute personne dont ils croient, pour des motifs raisonnables, qu'elle fait partie de l'une des catégories visées aux alinéas 27(2)b), e), f), g) ou h) et qu'elle constitue une menace pour la sécurité publique ou se dérobera à l'enquête; b) aux fins de renvoi du Canada, toute personne frappée par une mesure de renvoi exécutoire et dont ils croient, pour des motifs raisonnables, qu'elle constitue une menace pour la sécurité publique ou n'obtempérera pas à la mesure. Détention et mise en liberté par un arbitre 103(3) Dans le cas d'une personne devant faire l'objet d'une enquête ou d'une enquête complémentaire ou frappée par une mesure de renvoi ou de renvoi conditionnel, l'arbitre peut ordonner_: a) soit de la mettre en liberté, aux conditions qu'il juge indiquées en l'espèce, notamment la fourniture d'un cautionnement ou d'une garantie de bonne exécution; b) soit de la faire garder, s'il croit qu'elle constitue vraisemblablement une menace pour la sécurité publique ou qu'à défaut de cette mesure, elle se dérobera vraisemblablement à l'enquête ou à sa reprise ou n'obtempérera pas à la mesure de renvoi; c) soit de fixer les conditions qu'il juge indiquées en l'espèce, notamment la fourniture d'un cautionnement ou d'une garantie de bonne exécution. Détention et mise en liberté par un agent principal 103(3.1) Dans le cas d'une personne frappée par une mesure d'exclusion, d'interdiction de séjour ou d'interdiction de séjour conditionnelle prise par un agent principal, celui-ci peut ordonner_: a) soit de la mettre en liberté, aux conditions qu'il juge indiquées en l'espèce, notamment la fourniture d'un cautionnement ou d'une garantie de bonne exécution; b) soit de la faire garder, s'il croit qu'elle constitue vraisemblablement une menace pour la sécurité publique ou qu'à défaut de cette mesure, elle n'obtempérera vraisemblablement pas à la mesure; c) soit fixer les conditions qu'il juge indiquées en l'espèce, notamment la fourniture d'un cautionnement ou d'une garantie de bonne exécution. Avis 103(4) Le gardien ou celui qui, en application du présent article, ordonne la garde aux fins d'interrogatoire ou d'enquête doit immédiatement en aviser un agent principal, avec motifs à l'appui. Mise en liberté par l'agent principal 103(5) Dans les quarante-huit heures suivant le moment où une personne est placée sous garde en application de la présente loi, l'agent principal peut ordonner sa mise en liberté, aux conditions qu'il juge indiquées en l'espèce, notamment la fourniture d'un cautionnement ou d'une garantie de bonne exécution. Révision des motifs de la garde 103(6) Si l'interrogatoire, l'enquête ou le renvoi aux fins desquels il est gardé n'ont pas lieu dans les quarante-huit heures, ou si la décision n'est pas prise aux termes du paragraphe 27(4) dans ce délai, l'intéressé est amené, dès l'expiration de ce délai, devant un arbitre pour examen des motifs qui pourraient justifier une prolongation de sa garde; par la suite, il comparaît devant un arbitre aux mêmes fins au moins une fois_: a) dans la période de sept jours qui suit l'expiration de ce délai; b) tous les trente jours après l'examen effectué pendant cette période. Mise en liberté par l'arbitre 103(7) S'il est convaincu qu'il ne constitue vraisemblablement pas une menace pour la sécurité publique et qu'il ne se dérobera vraisemblablement pas à l'interrogatoire, à l'enquête ou au renvoi, l'arbitre chargé de l'examen prévu au paragraphe (6) ordonne la mise en liberté de l'intéressé, aux conditions qu'il juge indiquées en l'espèce, notamment la fourniture d'un cautionnement ou d'une garantie de bonne exécution. Nouvelle mise sous garde 103(8) Après la mise en liberté prévue à l'alinéa (3)a) ou au paragraphe (7), l'arbitre qui l'a ordonnée ou un autre arbitre peut à tout moment ordonner à nouveau la mise sous garde de l'intéressé, s'il estime que celui-ci constitue vraisemblablement une menace pour la sécurité publique ou qu'il se dérobera vraisemblablement à l'interrogatoire, à l'enquête ou au renvoi. |
|
IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS, 1978
| CERTIFICATES OF DEPARTURE 27. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a certificate of departure referred to in section 32.02 of the Act that verifies that a person in respect of whom a departure order has been issued has left Canada may be issued not later than 30 days (a) where the departure order is stayed, after the day on which the stay is no longer in effect; (b) where the Minister has declared a moratorium in respect of the removal of all nationals of the country of which the person is a national, after the end of the moratorium; or (c) in any other case, after the day on which the departure order becomes effective. 27.(2) In the case of a person who claims to be a Convention refugee but who has been determined by the Refugee Division not to be a Convention refugee, a certificate of departure referred to in subsection (1) may be issued not later than 30 days after the latest of (a) if the person does not submit an application for a determination referred to in paragraph 11.4(2)(b) within the period referred to in that paragraph, the day on which the person is notified by the Refugee Division of its determination; (b) the day on which the person is notified that an immigration officer has determined that the person is not a member of the post-determination refugee claimants in Canada class; (c) if the person is a member of the post-determination refugee claimants in Canada class but an immigration officer has determined that the person shall not be granted landing, the day on which the person is notified of that determination; and (d) where the departure order is stayed, the day on which the stay ceases to have effect. |
ATTESTATION DE DÉPART 27. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), l'attestation de départ prévue à l'article 32.02 de la Loi, qui constate le départ d'une personne visée par une mesure d'interdiction de séjour, doit être délivrée, selon le cas: a) s'il y a sursis d'exécution de la mesure d'interdiction de séjour, dans les 30 jours qui suivent la date de cessation d'effet du sursis d'exécution; b) si le ministre a déclaré un moratoire à l'égard du renvoi de tous les nationaux du pays dont la personne est un national, dans les 30 jours qui suivent la fin du moratoire; c) dans tout autre cas, dans les 30 jours qui suivent la date où la mesure d'interdiction de séjour est devenue exécutoire. 27.(2) Dans le cas d'une personne qui revendique le statut de réfugié au sens de la Convention et à qui la section du statut a refusé ce statut, l'attestation de départ visée au paragraphe (1) doit être délivrée dans les 30 jours suivant la plus tardive des dates suivantes : a) si la personne ne présente pas de demande visant l'attribution de la qualité de demandeur non reconnu du statut de réfugié au Canada dans le délai visé à l'alinéa 11.4(2)b), la date où la section du statut l'a avisée de sa décision; b) la date où la personne a été avisée de la décision de l'agent d'immigration de ne pas lui attribuer la qualité de demandeur non reconnu du statut de réfugié au Canada; c) si elle est un demandeur non reconnu du statut de réfugié au Canada et que l'agent d'immigration a décidé de ne pas lui accorder le droit d'établissement, la date où elle a été avisée de cette décision; d) s'il y a sursis d'exécution de la mesure d'interdiction de séjour, la date de cessation d'effet de ce sursis. |
|
[1] Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.I-2. In these reasons, all statutory provisions cited, except where stated otherwise, are found in the Immigration Act and are quoted in the attached Appendix. In these reasons, references to "the Minister" are references to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
[2] It was agreed on the motion for an expedited hearing of the present application heard on December 7, 2000, that both the argument for leave to commence the present judicial review application and the argument on judicial review itself be heard together on December 14, 2000 on an expedited basis on the exchange of written arguments between counsel for the Applicants and Respondent.
[3] Applicants' Application Record, pp. 142-144.
[4] Ibid, pp. 8-9.
[5] See Flavell v. Deputy M.N.R., Customs and Excise, [1997] 1 F.C. 640 (F.C.T.D.) for a description of how historical factors can guide statutory interpretation with specific reference to the House of Lords ruling in Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v. Hart, [1993] 1 All E.R. 42 (H.L.), where the acceptance of parliamentary history in statutory interpretation was approved by Lord Browne-Wilkinson, at 64 as follows:
My Lords, I have come to the conclusion that, as a matter of law, there are sound reasons for making a limited modification to the existing rule [of literal interpretation] (subject to strict safeguards) unless there are constitutional or practical reasons which outweigh them. In my judgment, subject to the questions of the privileges of the House of Commons, reference to parliamentary material should be permitted as an aid to the construction of legislation which is ambiguous or obscure or the literal meaning of which leads to an absurdity. Even in such cases references in court to parliamentary material should only be permitted where such material clearly discloses the mischief aimed at or the legislative intention lying behind the ambiguous or obscure words. In the case of statements made in Parliament, as at present advised I cannot foresee that any statement other than the statement of the minister or other promoter of the Bill is likely to meet these criteria.
[6] Donald Galloway, Immigration Law (Concord: Irwin Law,1997) at 221-222.
[7] Gardner v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (March 17, 2000) IMM-1031-00 (F.C.T.D.).
[8] Bedminster v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (February 26, 2000) IMM-970-00 (F.C.T.D.).
[9] Trasmundiv. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (June 15, 1999) IMM-2884-99 (F.C.T.D.).
[10] While Justice Gibson in Gardner disagrees with Justice Sharlow's statement, nevertheless, neither disputes the power of the Minister to involuntarily remove an applicant who is the subject of a departure order.
[11] Sahin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1995] F.C. 150 (F.C.T.D.).
[12] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B, Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44], s.7.
[13] Kidane v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] F.C.J. No. 990: This was an application for judicial review of the detention of a refugee pending deportation. The applicant, Kidane, arrived from Ethiopia as a refugee. He was placed in detention pending deportation after being convicted of 15 criminal offences. The Minister was unable to find a country to accept Kidane, who claimed he was Eritrean. As a result, he was detained for over two years. An adjudicator found that his continued detention was necessary as Kidane was a danger to the public. Kidane argued on judicial review that the adjudicator erred in finding that his incarceration was not indefinite and did not constitute a violation of his right to liberty. Associate Chief Justice Jerome (as he then was) dismissed the application, reasoning, per Sahin, that Kidane's detention was not indefinite because it was subject to regular review. Further, he ruled that detention was reasonable because Kidane was a danger to the public and responsible for delaying proceedings which contributed to his lengthy incarceration. In addition, there was no reasonable alternative to detention, and the adjudicator considered all relevant arguments in arriving at her decision.
[14] Bhatti v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 199 N.R. 154, 117 F.T.R. (Fed. C.A.), aff'd [1996] F.C.J. No. 614 (1996) 112 F.T.R. 274, (1996) 33 Imm. L.R. (2d) 277 (T.D.): This was an application for judicial review of an order continuing the detention of the applicant. Justice Noël dismissed the judicial review, holding that the Minister retained at all times full discretion as to the timing and mode of execution of her removal orders. The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed Justice Noël's ruling, holding that he correctly decided that the appellant who, after being arrested under a warrant issued under s.103(1), had been released by an adjudicator pursuant to s.103(7), could legally be rearrested for removal under s.103(1) or (2) without any need for his being retaken in custody under s.103(8).
[15] Halm v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1995] F.C.J. No. 1565, [1996] 1 F.C. 547, (1995) 104 F.T.R. 81, (1995) 32 Imm. L.R. (2d) 220: This was an application for judicial review of orders for deportation and detention. The applicant entered Canada without revealing that he had been convicted in New York of a number of counts of sodomy on a minor. The application was dismissed. Justice Rothstein held that the deportation order was based on reasonable grounds and that there was no evidence to support a claim that the applicant's rights under s.7 of the Charter had been infringed. He found that the adjudicator had not erred in concluding the applicant had made material misrepresentations when entering the country.
[16] Salilar v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1995] F.C.J. No. 1043.
[17] Ibid, paras. 27-28.
[18] Applicants' Application Record, p.50.
[19] Ibid, p.67.
[20] Bains v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1990] F.C.J. No. 457.