Category: Inadmissible Classes

The Court set aside a finding that the person was inadmissible on grounds of misrepresentation holding that there was an innocent mistake exception and the need to consider this possibility

The court upheld a finding of inadmissibility holding that although duress could apply to membership the tribunal did not err in concluding that the applicant's membership was not under duress

The COurt upheld a finding that the Applicant had misrepresented. The fact that the misrepresentation was made by the consultant was irrelevant.

The Court upheld a finding of medical inadmissibility and found no error in the fact that the applicant was not told the specific concerns as to why the officer believed he would cost excessive demands.

The Court upheld a decision based on a refusal under section 11 (1). The Court noted that the officer did not have an unfettered discretion to request documents. But in this case the requested documents were relevant to whether or not the applicant was inadmissible and hence the officer correctly rejected the applicant when he failed to produce the documents.

The Court held that the Government of Rwanda could not be considered a limited brutal purpose organization as it engaged in other functions other than committing crimes against humanity.

Toronto Coalition to Stop the War v. Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 2010 FC 957,should be reported. First the analysis of membership helps clarify the law on the question of membership. It makes it clear that the there must be some form of institutional link between the organization and the person. Donating money to an organization is not sufficient unless there is evidence that the money is intended to further terrorist activities. Hence a mere donation for a humanitarian purpose to an organization that might also carry out terrorist activities is not conclusive proof of membership. Also the dicta dealing with the conclusion that there was no decision in the case is noteworthy as is the analysis on freedom of expression.

The Court upheld a decision where the tribunal accepted the duress defense.

The Court upheld an inadmissibility finding. It concluded there was no abuse of process due to delay. It found no error in the rejection of the duress defense holding it was open to the tribunal to reject the defense.

The Court found that the tribunal did not err in accepting the defense of duress. The defense requires proof of three elements: In order to rely on the defense of duress, a person must prove that (1) there exists an urgent situation of clear and imminent peril, (2) compliance with the law is demonstrably impossible, and (3) the harm inflicted is less than the harm sought to be avoided. (R. v. Perka, 1984 CanLII 23 (S.C.C.), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232 at p. 248 ff.; Latimer, above at paragraphs 28 to 31). The burden of proof lies on the party relying on the defense of duress and it is then up to the Crown to disprove duress. (Ruzic above at paragraph 71).