Medovarski v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); Esteban v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 51, [2005] 2 SCR 539

                                                 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Between:

Olga Medovarski

Appellant

v.

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent

and between:

Julio Esteban

Appellant

v.

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Major, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish and Charron JJ.

Appeal heard and judgment rendered:  June 7, 2005

Reasons delivered:  September 30, 2005

______________________________

Medovarski v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); Esteban v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 539, 2005 SCC 51

Olga Medovarski                                                                                             Appellant

v.

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration                                                     Respondent

and

Julio Esteban                                                                                                    Appellant

v.

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration                                                     Respondent

Indexed as:  Medovarski v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); Esteban v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Neutral citation: 2005 SCC 51.

File Nos.:  30332, 30334.

Hearing and judgment:  June 7, 2005.

Reasons delivered:  September 30, 2005.

Present:  McLachlin C.J. and Major, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish and Charron JJ.

on appeal from the federal court of appeal

Immigration — Removal order — Right of appeal — Permanent residents ordered deported for serious criminality appealing removal order to Immigration Appeal Division — Removal order automatically stayed pursuant to provisions of former immigration legislation — Transitional provision in new immigration legislation to effect that appeal to Immigration Appeal Division discontinued if appellant not granted stay under former  legislation — Whether “transitional provision” applicable to both automatic and actively granted stays — Meaning of expression “granted a stay” in transitional provision — Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 196 .

Constitutional law — Charter of Rights  — Fundamental justice — Deportation — Right of appeal — Permanent residents’ right to appeal removal order for serious criminality extinguished by transitional provision of new immigration legislation — Whether process by which appeal  extinguished unfair and constituting breach of fundamental justice — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7  — Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 196 .

Statutes — Interpretation — Transitional provisions — Whether ordinary rules of interpretation applicable to transitional provisions — Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 196 .

Statutes — Interpretation — Bilingual statutes — Principles of interpretation — Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 196 .

M and E, two permanent residents, were ordered deported for serious criminality.  They each appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board and their removal orders were automatically stayed.  Both appeals were discontinued as a result of a transitional provision (s. 196 ) of the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act  (IRPA ), which took away the right to appeal an order for removal unless a party had, under the former Act, been “granted a stay”.  In each case, the trial judge set aside the decision to discontinue the appeal.  The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration’s appeal  in both cases, holding that the purpose of the IRPA ’s transitional provision was to deny a right of appeal in the case of an automatic stay.

Held:  The appeals should be dismissed.

Section 196  of the IRPA , properly interpreted, applies only to actively granted stays.  The objectives of the IRPA , as expressed in s. 3 , indicate an intent to prioritize security.  In keeping with these objectives, the IRPA  creates a new scheme whereby persons sentenced to more than six months in prison are inadmissible (s. 36 ); if they have been sentenced to a prison term of more than two years, they are denied a right to appeal their removal order (s. 64 ).  The purpose in enacting the IRPA , and in particular s. 64 , was to efficiently remove from the country persons who have engaged in serious criminality.  Since s. 196 refers explicitly to s. 64 , the transitional provisions should be interpreted in light of these legislative objectives.  With respect to the text of s. 196 , although the French version seems to apply to both an automatic and an actively ordered stay, the common meaning of the English and French versions of s. 196 , which is normally the narrower version, is in this case the English version, which applies only to actively granted stays.  This interpretation, which accords with Parliament’s general object, is reinforced by the absurd effect of the broader interpretation of s. 196 .  If s. 196 was applicable to automatic stays, it would effectively become redundant and be reduced to an essentially meaningless statutory provision.  It would also create in the context of s. 49(1)  a broad exemption for inadmissible persons in the country yet accord none to similar persons outside Canada. [9‑13] [28‑31]

The deportation of a non‑citizen cannot in itself implicate the liberty and security interests protected by s. 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .  Even if liberty and security of the person were engaged, any unfairness resulting from s. 196  would be inadequate to constitute a breach of the principles of fundamental justice. [46‑47]

Cases Cited

Referred to:  Canada v. Trade Investments Shopping Centre Ltd., [1993] 2 C.T.C. 333; R. v. Daoust, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 217, 2004 SCC 6; Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 269, 2002 SCC 62; Grillas v. Minister of Manpower and Immigration, [1972] S.C.R. 577; Chiarelli v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711; Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; CanadianOxy Chemicals Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 743.

Statutes and Regulations Cited

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 .

Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I‑2 [rep. 2001, c. 27, s. 274], ss. 3(d), (i), (j), 49(1)(b), (1.1), 70(5), 73(1).

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, ss. 3(1) (e), (h), (i), 25(1) , 36(1) (a), 44(1) , (2) , 64(1) , (2) , 72(1) , (2) (a), (d), (e), 97 , 112(1) , 113 (d), 114(1) (b), 192 , 196 , 197 .

Authors Cited

Canada.  House of Commons.  Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration,  Evidence, 1^st Sess., 37th Parl., Meeting No. 22, May 8, 2001 (online).

Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th ed.  New York: Oxford University Press, 2004, “grant”.

Côté, Pierre‑André.  The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada, 3rd ed.  Scarborough, Ont.:  Carswell, 2000.

Driedger, Elmer A.  Construction of Statutes, 2nd ed. Toronto: Butterworths, 1983.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal (Rothstein, Evans and Pelletier JJ.A.), [2004] 4 F.C.R. 48, 238 D.L.R. (4th) 328, 318 N.R. 252, 116 C.R.R. (2d) 268, 35 Imm. L.R. (3d) 161, [2004] F.C.J. No. 366 (QL), 2004 FCA 85, setting aside a judgment of Snider J., [2003] 4 F.C. 227, 28 Imm. L.R. (3d) 50, 234 F.T.R. 101, [2003] F.C.J. No. 811 (QL), 2003 FCT 634, allowing Medovarski’s application for a judicial review of an Immigration and Refugee Board (Appeal Division) decision.  Appeal dismissed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal (Rothstein, Evans and Pelletier JJ.A.), [2004] F.C.J. No. 1892 (QL), setting aside a judgment of Dawson J. (2003), 237 F.T.R. 264, 31 Imm. L.R. (3d) 47, [2003] F.C.J. No. 1181 (QL), 2003 FC 930, allowing Esteban’s application for a judicial review of an Immigration and Refugee Board (Appeal Division) decision.  Appeal dismissed.

Lorne Waldman and Brena Parnes, for the appellant Medovarski.

David Matas, for the appellant Esteban.

Bernard Laprade and Normand Lemyre, for the respondent.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by

The Chief Justice —

1.  Introduction

1                                   The core question on these appeals is whether s. 196 , a transitional provision of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27  (“IRPA ”), removes the right to appeal an order for removal to the Immigration Appeal Division (“IAD”), in the case of persons deemed inadmissible for serious criminality (i.e., sentenced to six months or more of imprisonment).  The old statute (Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2) granted this right of appeal.  The new statute does not for those imprisoned over two years.  The transitional provision took away the right to appeal an order for removal unless a party had, under the old Act, been “granted a stay”.  The old Act provided for two kinds of stays: automatic stays and actively ordered stays.  The appellants enjoyed only an automatic statutory stay.   If the phrase “granted a stay” indicates both kinds of stays, the appellants’ right to appeal is preserved.  Conversely, if it indicates only actively ordered stays, the appellants’ right to appeal is removed.

2                                   The appellants are Olga Medovarski and Julio Esteban.  Ms. Medovarski was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for criminal negligence causing death while driving a car when intoxicated.  Mr. Esteban was sentenced to four years in prison for conspiracy to traffic cocaine.  Both were ordered deported.  Medovarski and Esteban each appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board and their removal orders were automatically stayed.  Both of those appeals were discontinued as a result of the transitional provisions of the IRPA . In each case the trial judge set aside the decision to discontinue the appeal:  [2003] 4 F.C. 227, 2003 FCT 634; 237 F.T.R. 264, 2003 FC 930.  In both cases the majority of the Federal Court of Appeal granted the Minister’s appeal, holding that the IRPA ’s transitional provisions intended to deny a right of appeal in the case of an automatic stay:  [2004] 4 F.C.R. 48, 2004 FCA 85, and [2004] F.C.J. No. 1892 (QL).

3                                   I conclude, as did the majority of the Federal Court of Appeal, that “granted a stay” indicates only actively granted stays, and s. 196  of the IRPA  therefore removes the appellants’ right to appeal the order for their removal for serious criminality.  The applicable principles of statutory interpretation permit no other conclusion. The appellants’ argument that this result is unfair does not displace this conclusion.  The section, properly interpreted, establishes that Parliament intended to deny a right of appeal to persons in the appellants’ circumstances.  Accordingly, I would dismiss the appeals.

2.      Legislation

4                                   The transitional provisions of the IRPA  include ss. 192  and 196 :

192. If a notice of appeal has been filed with the Immigration Appeal Division immediately before the coming into force of this section, the appeal shall be continued under the former Act by the Immigration Appeal Division of the Board.

196. Despite section 192, an appeal made to the Immigration Appeal Division before the coming into force of this section shall be discontinued if the appellant has not been granted a stay under the former Act and the appeal could not have been made because of section 64 of this Act.

5                                   Section 64  of the IRPA  expressly removes a right to appeal for those inadmissible on  the grounds of serious criminality:

64. (1) No appeal may be made to the Immigration Appeal Division by a foreign national or their sponsor or by a permanent resident if the foreign national or permanent resident has been found to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality.

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), serious criminality must be with respect to a crime that was punished in Canada by a term of imprisonment of at least two years.

6                                   The appellants, Medovarski and Esteban, fall within the scope of the current s. 64  which alters the legislative regime to ensure that they have no right of appeal under the IRPA .

7                                   However, the appellants argue that since they filed a notice of appeal, which resulted in the removal order being automatically stayed pursuant to s. 49(1)(b) of the former Act, their appeal should not be discontinued under s. 196 . 

49. (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), the execution of a removal order made against a person is stayed 

. . .

(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;

. . .

(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.

(The relevant provisions of the IRPA  and its predecessor statute are found in the Appendix.)

3.      Analysis

8                                   The words of this statute, like any other, must be interpreted having regard to the object, text and context of the provision, considered together: E. A. Driedger,  Construction of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983), at p. 87.  In interpreting s. 196  to determine whether it eliminates appeals for permanent residents for whom a stay from an order for removal had been granted, I consider the purpose of the IRPA  and its transitional provisions, the French and English text of s. 196 , the legislative context of s. 196 , and the need to interpret the provision to avoid an absurd, illogical or redundant result.  Finally, I deal with concerns about unfairness to the appellants caused by the transition to the new IRPA .

3.1    Purpose of the Section 196  Transitional Provisions

9                                   The IRPA enacted a series of provisions intended to facilitate the removal of permanent residents who have engaged in serious criminality. This intent is reflected in the objectives of the IRPA , the provisions of the IRPA  governing permanent residents and the legislative hearings preceding the enactment of the IRPA .

10                               The objectives as expressed in the IRPA  indicate an intent to prioritize security. This objective is given effect by preventing the entry of applicants with criminal records, by removing applicants with such records from Canada, and by emphasizing the obligation of permanent residents to behave lawfully while in Canada.  This marks a change from the focus in the predecessor statute, which emphasized the successful integration of applicants more than security: e.g., see s. 3(1)(i) of the IRPA  versus s. 3(j) of the former Act; s. 3(1)(e) of the IRPA  versus s. 3(d) of the former Act; s. 3(1)(h) of the IRPA  versus s. 3(i) of the former Act.  Viewed collectively, the objectives of the IRPA  and its provisions concerning permanent residents, communicate a strong desire to treat criminals and security threats less leniently than under the former Act.

11                               In keeping with these objectives, the IRPA  creates a new scheme whereby persons sentenced to more than six months in prison are inadmissible:  IRPA, s. 36(1) (a).  If they have been sentenced to a prison term of more than two years then they are denied a right to appeal their removal order:  IRPA, s. 64 . Provisions allowing judicial review mitigate the finality of these provisions, as do appeals under humanitarian and compassionate grounds and pre-removal risk assessments.  However, the Act is clear: a prison term of over six months will bar entry to Canada; a prison term of over two years bans an appeal.

12                               In introducing the IRPA , the Minister emphasized that the purpose of provisions such as s. 64  was to remove the right to appeal by serious criminals.  She voiced the  concern that “those who pose a security risk to Canada be removed from our country as quickly as possible” (Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, Evidence, May 8, 2001).

13                               In summary, the provisions of the IRPA  and the Minister’s comments indicate that the purpose of enacting the IRPA , and in particular s. 64 , was to efficiently remove criminals sentenced to prison terms over six months from the country. Since s. 196 explicitly refers to s. 64  (barring appeals by serious criminals), it seems that the transitional provisions should be interpreted in light of these legislative objectives.

14                               The appellants respond by suggesting transitional provisions are not to be interpreted with the legislative purpose in mind.  Medovarski relies on the statement of Noël J. in Canada v. Trade Investments Shopping Centre Ltd., [1993] 2 C.T.C. 333 (F.C.T.D.), where Noël J. held that “[t]ransitional provisions do not lend themselves to the scrutiny of an overly strict interpretation” and that transitional provisions “are not adopted as part of a coherent legislative plan” (p. 340).  Noël J., Medovarski submits, concluded that transitional provisions are “ad hoc provisions the sole purpose of which is to ensure that the particular provision of substantive law which they accompany is introduced in an equitable manner” (p. 340).

15                               With respect, the argument rests on a selective reading of Noël J.’s words.  He did not hold that transitional provisions attract special rules of interpretation.  Rather, he affirmed that in statutory interpretation, the search is always for the intention of the legislator, and where legislative purpose is relevant to a transitional provision, as here, it should be considered.  He stated, at p. 337: “In each of these cases, the scope of a transitional provision must be determined from its wording, the nature of the provision of substantive law which it has the effect of suspending and the specific situation which Parliament sought to correct by enacting it.”

16                               The appellants also argue that Noël J.’s statement that the purpose of transitional provisions is to ensure equitable treatment, means that their particular circumstances must be considered in applying s. 196  of the IRPA .  They argue that equitable treatment in their cases favours preserving their right of appeal under s. 196 , given their reliance on that right, and their compelling personal circumstances. 

17                               This argument confuses broad equitable outcome with equitable treatment having regard to the different schemes of the two successive statutes. Transitional provisions are enacted to catch those who fall between the cracks created by two pieces of legislation.  They ensure that these individuals are not left in legal limbo, uncertain of their rights and with no applicable law.  This is the equitable treatment to which Noël J. refers, not a guarantee of an equitable outcome.

3.2    The Text of Section 196 

18                               The next step is to consider the terms of s. 196 .  The Minister and majority of the Federal Court of Appeal conclude that the use of the term “granted” indicates an actively ordered, as opposed to an automatic stay. This is supported by the definition of the term “grant” in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (11th ed. 2004) which defines it as: “give (a right, property, etc.) formally or legally to . . . legal conveyance or formal conferment” (p. 620).  This definition supports a deliberate act.  The English version of s. 196  suggests that it applies only to stays actively granted.  This said, it is possible to argue, for instance, that statutes can “grant” a right of appeal and that consequently the English version of s. 196  is not as clear as the Minister contends.

19                               Against this, the appellants raise the French version of s. 196 , the meaning of which is even less clear.  The French text of s. 196  states:

196. Malgré l’article 192, il est mis fin à l’affaire portée en appel devant la Section d’appel de l’immigration si l’intéressé est, alors qu’il ne fait pas l’objet d’un sursis au titre de l’ancienne loi, visé par la restriction du droit d’appel prévue par l’article 64 de la présente loi.

20                               It is argued that the French version broadly applies to all appeals that are not the “objet” of a stay, including statutory stays. However, again the matter is not entirely clear. “[L]’objet d’un sursis au titre de l’ancienne loi”  is broader and more passive than the English version, which refers to “grant[ing] a stay”.  The appellants argue that beneficiaries of automatic stays under the old Act are “objets” of a stay.  Again, however, the matter is not entirely clear.  On this interpretation it can be argued that the condition imposed by s. 196  would have little meaning (see below). Further, the companion s. 197 refers to “an appellant who has been granted a stay under the former Act” who “breaches a condition of the stay”.  It uses the same language as s. 196 .  But s. 197 can only refer to an actively ordered stay since conditions are not imposed in an automatic stay, suggesting that s. 196  refers to an actively ordered stay.

21                               The result is that we are dealing with an English version which arguably applies only to actively granted stays, although admitting of ambiguity, and a French version which arguably applies to all stays, whether statutory or granted, although again admitting of ambiguity.

22                               Other uses of the word “stay” in the old and new Acts provide little assistance; the term is used in a variety of different ways depending on the context.

3.3  Principles of French and English Statutory Interpretation

23                               There is some conflict in the lower courts and between the parties as to the approach that should be adopted with respect to conflicting French and English versions of legislation.  However, this dispute was addressed and resolved by this Court in R. v. Daoust, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 217, 2004 SCC 6, supported by earlier decisions, particularly Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 269, 2002 SCC 62.  These cases, while not cited by the Federal Court of Appeal, guide the analysis of bilingual statutes.

24                               In interpreting bilingual statutes, the statutory interpretation should begin with a search for the shared meaning between the two versions: P.-A. Côté, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (3rd ed. 2000), at p. 327.  In Daoust,  Bastarache J. held for the Court that the interpretation of bilingual statutes is subject to a two-part procedure.

25                               First, one must apply the rules of statutory interpretation to determine whether or not there is an apparent discordance, and if so, whether there is a common meaning between the French and English versions.  “[W]here one of the two versions is broader than the other, the common meaning would favour the more restricted or limited meaning”: Schreiber, at para. 56, per LeBel J.  Schreiber concerned a discrepancy between the French version of s. 6 (a) of the State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S‑18 , which stated that the exception to state immunity is narrowly “décès” or “dommages corporels”, compared to the broader English “death” or “personal injury”.  Given the conflict between the two provisions the Court adopted the clearer and more restrictive French version.  The common meaning is the version that is plain and not ambiguous.  If neither version is ambiguous, or if they both are, the common meaning is normally the narrower version: Daoust, at paras. 28-29.

26                               Second, one must determine if the common meaning is consistent with Parliament’s intent: Daoust, at para. 30.

27                               I now turn to the application of these principles to the facts in this case.

28                               If the English version of s. 196  is interpreted as applying only to actively granted stays, and if the French version is read as referring to all stays, including automatic ones, the two versions are inconsistent.  One then looks for the common meaning, which is normally the narrower meaning.  In this case, the narrower version is the English version of s. 196 .   This suggests that the English meaning prevails, and the provision is confined to actively granted stays. 

29                               If both the English and French versions are seen as ambiguous, the result is the same.  One reconciles them at the first step by finding the common meaning, which again is the narrower meaning. 

30                               The final step asks whether the results comport with Parliament’s intent.  Here they do.  The narrower interpretation accords with Parliament’s general object of abolishing appeals where a permanent resident has been found inadmissible on the grounds of serious criminality and is sentenced to a prison term of over two years, while preserving appeals in cases where the merits were such that a stay is ordered.

3.4   Avoidance of Redundancy

31                               As we have seen, consideration of the purpose and language of s. 196 tend to suggest that it was intended to apply only to actively granted stays.  This conclusion is reinforced by the absurd effect of the interpretation advocated by the appellants. If s. 196 applies to automatic stays, then it effectively becomes redundant and is reduced to an essentially meaningless statutory provision.

32                               The appellants’ interpretation results in three related problems.

33                               First, s. 192 provides that appeals are continued “[i]f a notice of appeal has been filed”.  Section 49(1)(b) of the former Act automatically stayed the execution of a removal order once the appeal has been filed.  This would mean that the appellants’ removal orders were automatically stayed by the simple act of filing an appeal.  They argue that this should result in their appeals being continued pursuant to s. 192  of the IRPA .  However, s. 196 states that “[d]espite section 192 , an appeal made to the Immigration Appeal Division . . . shall be discontinued if the appellant has not been granted a stay”.  Since the appellant has already automatically been granted a stay under s. 49(1) (b), requiring that a stay be granted for the operation of s. 196  would make no sense since an automatic stay is already in place.  Further, the use of “if” or “si” in s. 196  creates a condition.  If the appellants’ interpretation is accepted then there is no condition to satisfy since every appeal pending before the IAD would be continued.  Therefore, the automatic stay imposed with the filing of the appeal cannot be enough; more is needed to give meaning to s. 196  and the conditional phrase, “if the appellant has not been granted a stay”.

34                               Second, the appellants’ argument leads to the absurdity of concluding that Parliament intended to eliminate appeals for inadmissible people outside the country, while allowing appeals to proceed for inadmissible persons who are in the country.  Section 49(1) applies only to removal orders, and hence only to people within the country.  This leaves the unanswered question: why would Parliament create a broad exemption for persons in the country yet accord none to similar persons outside the country?

35                               Third, the appellants’ interpretation appears to result in a redundancy inconsistent with the purpose of the Act.  As just discussed, s. 49(1)(b) of the former Act imposes an automatic stay when an appeal is filed.  Thus the simple act of filing an appeal would exempt the appeal from being discontinued by s. 196  of the IRPA .  Thus there is little left for s. 196  to discontinue other than appeals that have been granted to s. 49(1.1)  appellants.  These people are a subset of serious criminals in the system.  This raises the question of why Parliament would confine the provision to a subset, when its legislative purpose was concerned with serious criminals generally.  As Evans J.A. stated, there is no cogent policy rationale for such a distinction (para. 43).

36                               The appellants counter with their own redundancy argument, which in the end has little merit.  They argue that the Minister’s interpretation of s. 196  would render the provision redundant because under the former Act, the only way that a deliberate stay could be “granted” was via s. 73(1)(c).  This was one way the IAD could “dispose” of an appeal.  However, both ss. 192  and 196  refer to an appeal in progress as opposed to an appeal that has been “disposed” of.  As a result, according to the appellants, s. 196  cannot apply to a deliberate stay since under s. 73(1)(c) there is no such thing as a stay granted in an ongoing appeal. 

37                               This argument is answered simply by pointing out that granting a stay under s. 73(1)(c) was merely a temporary measure, and the IAD retained an ongoing supervisory jurisdiction.  Its decision was not final: Grillas v. Minister of Manpower and Immigration, [1972] S.C.R. 577.  The appeal would only truly be disposed of, or terminated, when the appeal was allowed or dismissed.

38                               In the end, the Minister’s claim that the appellants’ interpretation would render the transitional provisions largely redundant and meaningless is persuasive, and the appellants provide no viable counter argument.

3.5    Other Arguments

39                               To counter the apparent redundancy of s. 196  on their interpretation, the appellants raise a series of practical considerations that they submit should inform the interpretation of s. 196 .  These normative arguments may suggest an absurdity or legislative intention and inform the context of an enactment.  As such, they may be properly considered in interpreting a disputed provision.

40                               The appellants’ first practical argument is that had they known that their right to appeal would be retroactively removed, they would have proceeded differently in their criminal trials.  The two appellants are in different positions in this regard, although Esteban adopts many of Medovarski’s facts to support his case.

41                               Medovarski claims that had she known that she might be denied an appeal by s. 196  (and s. 64), she would have instructed her counsel to bring this fact to the attention of the sentencing judge, in support of a sentence of two years less a day, as opposed to two years.  According to her, interpreting s. 196  in a manner which continues her appeal because of the automatic stay remedies this unjust situation. However, s. 64 has caught, or is likely to catch, any number of permanent residents who are or were in prison serving two-year terms at the time the IRPA  was passed.  They too might have sought two-year sentences less a day had they known that a two-year sentence would remove their right of appeal under the IRPA .  Parliament chose not to account for this obvious situation. 

42                               The appellants’ second practical argument is that they are left in a worse position than had their cases been dealt with under either Act exclusively.  Even though the IRPA  removed a right of appeal, the appellants would have had other procedural protections, including an assessment report had they been dealt with entirely under the IRPA : ss. 44(1)  and 44(2) .  Under the former Act, procedures of equitable review were conducted at a later stage via the appeal.  Parties were also given notice that the Minister intended to issue a “danger opinion” (which removed a right of appeal) (s. 70(5) ) and an opportunity to make submissions.  Under the transitional provisions as interpreted by the Minister,  the appellants have lost recourse to both the former and the later mechanisms of appeal or review.

43                                The Minister raises factors which it submits balance the appellants’ concerns.  Medovarski will not be deported without an assessment of the risks she might face in her home country:  IRPA, ss. 112(1) , 113 (d), 97  and 114(1) (b).  Medovarski and Esteban can always appeal on humanitarian and compassionate grounds although they will have to do this outside the country:  IRPA, s. 25(1) . Finally, they retain their right to seek leave and judicial review of the removal order and other decisions leading to it:  s. 72  of the IRPA .  It remains true that the appellants were left with fewer options than had they proceeded exclusively under either Act.  However, this alone does not suffice to negate the inference flowing from other considerations that Parliament intended this result.

44                               The appellants’ third practical argument is that their appeals were discontinued after they had been filed.  However, this argument is answered by the fact that the express purpose of the IRPA ’s transitional provisions is to deal with these pending appeals.  Section 196  expressly provides that it operates despite s. 192 , which is only engaged if a notice of appeal has been filed under the former Act. Thus any unfairness on this account is contemplated by the legislation.

45                               Finally both appellants raise Charter  arguments.  Medovarski claims that s. 196  violates her s. 7  rights to liberty and security of the person.  She claims that deportation removes her liberty to make fundamental decisions that affect her personal life, including her choice to remain with her partner.  Medovarski argues her security of the person is infringed by the state-imposed psychological stress of being deported.  Medovarski further alleges that the process by which her appeal was extinguished was unfair, contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.

46                               The most fundamental principle of immigration law is that non-citizens do not have an unqualified right to enter or remain in Canada: Chiarelli v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711, at p. 733.  Thus the deportation of a non-citizen in itself cannot implicate the liberty and security interests protected by s. 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

47                               Even if liberty and security of the person were engaged, the unfairness is inadequate to constitute a breach of the principles of fundamental justice. The humanitarian and compassionate grounds raised by Medovarski are considered under s. 25(1)  of the IRPA  in determining whether a non-citizen should be admitted to Canada.  The Charter  ensures that this decision is fair: e.g., Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817.  Moreover, Chiarelli held that the s. 7  principles of fundamental justice do not mandate the provision of a compassionate appeal from a decision to deport a permanent resident for serious criminality.  There can be no expectation that the law will not change from time to time, nor did the Minister mislead Medovarski into thinking that her right of appeal would survive any change in the law.  Thus for these reasons, and those discussed earlier, any unfairness wrought by the transition to new legislation does not reach the level of a Charter  violation.

48                               Esteban asserts that Charter  values should inform the interpretation of s. 196 .  Charter  values only inform statutory interpretation where “genuine ambiguity arises between two or more plausible readings, each equally in accordance with the intentions of the statute”:  CanadianOxy Chemicals Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 743, at para. 14.  Both readings are not equally in accordance with the intention of the IRPA .  Thus it is not necessary to consider Charter  values in this case. 

3.6    Conclusion on the Meaning of Section 196 

49                               Despite the fairness arguments raised by the appellants, I conclude that the interpretation of s. 196  they suggest leads to a legislative redundancy and is inconsistent with the objectives of the IRPA .  This conclusion finds further support in the text of s. 196  and principles of interpretation of bilingual statutes.

4.      Conclusion

50                               Section 196  of the IRPA , properly interpreted, applies only to actively granted stays.  The appellants were never the beneficiaries of actively granted stays.  Therefore, s. 196 does not apply to them and their right to appeal their orders for removal were not preserved.

51                               I would dismiss the appeals with costs to the respondent.

                                                           APPENDIX

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 

3. (1)    The objectives of this Act with respect to immigration are

                                                                   . . .

(e) to promote the successful integration of permanent residents into Canada, while recognizing that integration involves mutual obligations for new immigrants and Canadian society;

                                                                   . . .

(h) to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to maintain the security of Canadian society;

(i) to promote international justice and security by fostering respect for human rights and by denying access to Canadian territory to persons who are criminals or security risks; and

                                                                   . . .

25. (1) The Minister shall, upon request of a foreign national who is inadmissible or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, and may, on the Minister’s own initiative, examine the circumstances concerning the foreign national and may grant the foreign national permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligation of this Act if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to them, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected, or by public policy considerations.

                                                                   . . .

36. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality for

(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, or of an offence under an Act of Parliament for which a term of imprisonment of more than six months has been imposed;

                                                                   . . .

44. (1) An officer who is of the opinion that a permanent resident or a foreign national who is in Canada is inadmissible may prepare a report setting out the relevant facts, which report shall be transmitted to the Minister.

(2) If the Minister is of the opinion that the report is well‑founded, the Minister may refer the report to the Immigration Division for an admissibility hearing, except in the case of a permanent resident who is inadmissible solely on the grounds that they have failed to comply with the residency obligation under section 28 and except, in the circumstances prescribed by the regulations, in the case of a foreign national. In those cases, the Minister may make a removal order.

                                                                   . . .

64. (1) No appeal may be made to the Immigration Appeal Division by a foreign national or their sponsor or by a permanent resident if the foreign national or permanent resident has been found to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality.

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), serious criminality must be with respect to a crime that was punished in Canada by a term of imprisonment of at least two years.

                                                                   . . .

72. (1) Judicial review by the Federal Court with respect to any matter —  a decision, determination or order made, a measure taken or a question raised — under this Act is commenced by making an application for leave to the Court.

(2) The following provisions govern an application under subsection (1):

(a) the application may not be made until any right of appeal that may be provided by this Act is exhausted;

                                                                   . . .

(d) a judge of the Court shall dispose of the application without delay and in a summary way and, unless a judge of the Court directs otherwise, without personal appearance; and

(e) no appeal lies from the decision of the Court with respect to the application or with respect to an interlocutory judgment.

97. (1) A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their country or countries of nationality or, if they do not have a country of nationality, their country of former habitual residence, would subject them personally

(a) to a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture; or

(b) to a risk to their life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or  punishment if

(i) the person is unable or, because of that risk, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country,

(ii) the risk would be faced by the person in every part of that country and is not faced generally by other individuals in or from that country,

(iii) the risk is not inherent or incidental to lawful sanctions, unless imposed in disregard of accepted international standards, and

(iv) the risk is not caused by the inability of that country to provide adequate health or medical care.

(2) A person in Canada who is a member of a class of persons prescribed by the regulations as being in need of protection is also a person in need of protection.

. . .

112. (1) A person in Canada, other than a person referred to in subsection 115(1), may, in accordance with the regulations, apply to the Minister for protection if they are subject to a removal order that is in force or are named in a certificate described in subsection 77(1).

                                                                   . . .

113. Consideration of an application for protection shall be as follows:

                                                                   . . .

(d) in the case of an applicant described in subsection 112(3), consideration shall be on the basis of the factors set out in section 97  and

(i) in the case of an applicant for protection who is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality, whether they are a danger to the public in Canada, or

(ii) in the case of any other applicant, whether the application should be refused because of the nature and severity of acts committed by the applicant or because of the danger that the applicant constitutes to the security of Canada.

114. (1) A decision to allow the application for protection has

                                                                   . . .

(b) in the case of an applicant described in subsection 112(3), the effect of staying the removal order with respect to a country or place in respect of which the applicant was determined to be in need of protection.

                                                                   . . .

192. If a notice of appeal has been filed with the Immigration Appeal Division immediately before the coming into force of this section, the appeal shall be continued under the former Act by the Immigration Appeal Division of the Board.

                                                                   . . .

196. Despite section 192, an appeal made to the Immigration Appeal Division before the coming into force of this section shall be discontinued if the appellant has not been granted a stay under the former Act and the appeal could not have been made because of section 64 of this Act.

197. Despite section 192, if an appellant who has been granted a stay under the former Act breaches a condition of the stay, the appellant shall be subject to the provisions of section 64 and subsection 68(4) of this Act.

Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés, L.C. 2001, ch. 27 

196. Malgré l’article 192, il est mis fin à l’affaire portée en appel devant la Section d’appel de l’immigration si l’intéressé est, alors qu’il ne fait pas l’objet d’un sursis au titre de l’ancienne loi, visé par la restriction du droit d’appel prévue par l’article 64 de la présente loi.

197. Malgré l’article 192, l’intéressé qui fait l’objet d’un sursis au titre de l’ancienne loi et qui n’a pas respecté les conditions du sursis, est assujetti à la restriction du droit d’appel prévue par l’article 64 de la présente loi, le paragraphe 68(4) lui étant par ailleurs applicable.

Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I‑2 (repealed S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 274 , in force June 28, 2002 (SI/2002‑97))

3. It is hereby declared that Canadian immigration policy and the rules and regulations made under this Act shall be designed and administered in such a manner as to promote the domestic and international interests of Canada recognizing the need

                                                                   . . .

(d)  to encourage and facilitate the adaptation of persons who have been granted admission as permanent residents to Canadian society by promoting cooperation between the Government of Canada and other levels of government and non‑governmental agencies in Canada with respect thereto;

                                                                   . . .

(h)  to foster the development of a strong and viable economy and the prosperity of all regions in Canada;

                                                                   . . .

(j) to promote international order and justice by denying the use of Canadian territory to persons who are likely to engage in criminal activity.

49. (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), the execution of a removal order made against a person is stayed

                                                                   . . .

(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;

                                                                   . . .

(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.

70. . . .

(5) No appeal may be made to the Appeal Division by a person described in subsection (1) or paragraph (2)(a) or (b) against whom a deportation order or conditional deportation order is made where the Minister is of the opinion that the person constitutes a danger to the public in Canada and the person has been determined by an adjudicator to be

(a) a member of an inadmissible class described in paragraph 19(1)(c), (c.1),  (c.2) or (d);

(b) a person described in paragraph 27(1)(a.1); or

(c) a person described in paragraph 27(1)(d) who has been convicted of an offence under any Act of Parliament for which a term of imprisonment of ten years or more may be imposed.

73. (1) The Appeal Division may dispose of an appeal made pursuant to section 70

(a) by allowing it;

(b) by dismissing it;

(c)  in the case of an appeal made pursuant to paragraph 70(1)(b) or 70(3)(b) respecting a removal order, by directing that execution of the order be stayed;

                                                                   . . .

Appeals dismissed with costs.

Solicitors for the appellant Medovarski:  Waldman & Associates, Toronto.

Solicitor for the appellant Esteban:  David Matas, Winnipeg.

Solicitor for the respondent:  Department of Justice, Ottawa.