Canadian Supreme Court Clarifies Inadmissibility Criteria Based on National Security

The Supreme Court of Canada delivered a landmark immigration law on September 27, ruling that curtails the authority of immigration officials and tribunals in deporting foreign nationals with no criminal convictions based on security concerns. The Supreme Court redefined the immigration law during the Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) case that revolved around foreign nationals Earl Mason and Seifeslam Dleiow residing in Canada.

Mr. Mason faced charges of attempted murder and discharging a firearm stemming from a bar altercation. However, due to delays, these charges were ultimately dropped. Mr. Dleiow faced allegations of committing acts of violence against intimate partners. He received dismissals on some of these charges and admitted guilt in three other cases.

After these incidents, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) compiled reports claiming that both individuals were ineligible for entry into Canada under the provisions of s—34 (1)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). Under the stipulations of IRPA’s Section 34(1)(e), it is outlined that a permanent resident or a foreign national can be deemed inadmissible on security grounds for their involvement in acts of violence that could potentially jeopardize the lives or safety of individuals in Canada.

In its ruling, the inadmissibility tribunal concluded that the two men were indeed inadmissible to Canada, interpreting “acts of violence” as per section 34(1)(e) in a broad manner, devoid of the necessity for a direct connection to national security or the security of Canada.

So, despite not posing a threat to national security, the aggressive actions of both individuals constituted grounds for their inadmissibility to Canada. In disagreement with this decision, the two men pursued appeals that ultimately reached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court determined that an individual can only face inadmissibility under section 34(1)(e) of the IRPA if their violent conduct is directly connected to national security or the security of Canada. Since neither Mr. Mason nor Mr. Dleiow were alleged to have engaged in acts of violence related to national security or the security of Canada, section 34(1)(e) did not establish grounds for their inadmissibility.

Advocates and legal experts welcome the decision of the Canadian Supreme Court and assert that the ruling will limit the capacity of authorities and government tribunals to employ overly broad measures for expelling individuals from the country, thereby enhancing accountability in deportation decisions.

Feel free to contact us for your queries.

Read To Know: All You Need To Know About LMIA For Canada