Date: 20151030
Docket: A-531-14
Citation:
2015 FCA 237
|
CORAM:
|
GAUTHIER J.A.
RYER J.A.
NEAR J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
|
|
Appellant
|
|
and
|
|
THANH TAM TRAN
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT
GAUTHIER J.A.
[1]
This is an appeal by the Minister of Public
Safety and Emergency Preparedness (the Minister) from a decision of Justice
James O’Reilly of the Federal Court (the judge) allowing an application for
judicial review brought by Thanh Tam Tran. This decision is reported under the
neutral citation 2014 FC 1040.
[2]
Mr. Tran is a citizen of Vietnam who has been a
permanent resident in Canada since 1989. In 2012, he was convicted on a charge
of producing marijuana and later received a 12-month conditional sentence of
imprisonment.
[3]
The decision under review before the judge was a
decision of a delegate of the Minister, under subsection 44(2) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001 c. 27 (IRPA), referring Mr. Tran to a
hearing before the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Board (ID) to determine whether he should be found inadmissible to
Canada on account of serious criminality as defined in paragraph 36(1)(a)
of the IRPA.
[4]
The judge certified the following two questions:
1.
Is a conditional sentence of imprisonment
imposed pursuant to the regime set out in ss. 742 to 742.7 of the Criminal
Code [R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46] “a term of imprisonment” under s. 36 (1)(a)
of the IRPA?
2.
Does the phrase “punishable
by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years” in s. 36(1)(a)
of the IRPA refer to the maximum term of imprisonment available at the time the
person was sentenced or to the maximum term of imprisonment under the law in
force at the time admissibility is determined?
[5]
Before this Court, the Minister also challenges
the finding of the judge that the decision was unreasonable because the
decision maker relied, in part, on unproven allegations - arrests, charges and
police reports.
[6]
For the reasons that follow, I would allow the
appeal.
I.
Background
[7]
In March 2011, Mr. Tran was involved with others
in operating a marijuana grow operation (grow op), which involved about 915
marijuana plants and the theft of electricity worth almost $100,000. On November
29, 2012, Mr. Tran was convicted of production of a controlled substance,
contrary to subsection 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,
S.C. 1996, c. 19 (CDSA).
[8]
On January 18, 2013, Mr. Tran was sentenced. At
the time Mr. Tran committed the offence, it was punishable by a maximum term of
imprisonment of 7 years. On November 6, 2012, that is prior to his conviction
and his sentencing, legislation came into effect which increased the maximum
punishment for the offence to 14 years of imprisonment and provided for a new
minimum sentence of 2 years of imprisonment. However, the sentencing judge
could only impose the lesser penalty applicable to the offence pursuant to
subsections 11(g) and (i) of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B
to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 (Charter) (see
Appendix A). In this case, this meant that the maximum penalty that could have
been imposed on Mr. Tran was 7 years of imprisonment.
[9]
On July 26, 2013, an officer of the Canada
Border Services Agency (CBSA) made a report under subsection 44(1) of the IRPA (see
Appendix A) stating that Mr. Tran was inadmissible for serious criminality under
paragraph 36(1)(a). It appears that Mr. Tran’s file was referred to an admissibility
hearing.
[10]
However, as section 64 of the IRPA (see Appendix
A) had just been amended (Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act,
S.C. 2013, c. 16), CBSA withdrew the referral because it was of the opinion
that Mr. Tran would no longer have a right to appeal a removal order (Appeal
Book, Vol. 1, Tab 37, pp. 271-272 and Tab 38, p. 273). Mr. Tran was permitted
to file additional submissions. In the said submissions, Mr. Tran’s legal
counsel fully canvassed the following two arguments that Mr. Tran raised before
the judge and before this Court (Appeal Book, Vol. 1, Tab 14, pp. 144-157).
[11]
First, that Mr. Tran did not fall within the
ambit of paragraph 36(1)(a) of the IRPA because, at the time of his
sentencing, the maximum punishment that could be applied to him was 7 years, pursuant
to sections 11(g) and (i) of the Charter. Second, that his
12-month conditional sentence of imprisonment did not fall within the ambit of
paragraph 36(1)(a), and thus subsection 64(2) of the IRPA, because the words
“term of imprisonment” therein should be read as
referring only to a “carceral term of imprisonment”
so as to exclude a “conditional term of imprisonment.”
[12]
Both parties agree that the Minister’s delegate
had some discretion, albeit a limited one, not to refer a permanent resident
such as Mr. Tran to an admissibility hearing even if he was found to meet the
criteria set out in paragraph 36(1)(a) (Hernandez v. Canada (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 429, [2006] 1 F.C.R. 3, and chapter
ENF 6 – Review of reports under A44(1) of the Citizenship and Immigration
Canada (CIC), Enforcement Manual (Enforcement Manual) (Joint Book of
Authorities, Vol. 4, Tab 113)). As this was not an issue before the judge or
this Court, I will assume for the purposes of this appeal only that this is so.
I note however that this is an issue that will need to be resolved at some
point in the future given our Court’s decision in Canada (Minister of Public
Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Cha, 2006 FCA 126 at para. 41, [2007]
1 F.C.R. 409.
[13]
Thus, in accordance with directions provided to
him from CBSA, Mr. Tran raised various facts which, in his opinion, would
justify the exercise of this discretion in his favour. In particular, Mr. Tran
relied on the length of his residency in Canada and the fact that he had been
in Canada for more than 22 years “without incident”
(24 years when one considers the period after his conviction) (Appeal Book,
Vol. 1, Tab 14, p. 163). He also submitted that removing him would be against
the best interests of his five children who were all born in Canada from
separate relationships. The mothers and the children all live in British
Columbia. Mr. Tran added that his current common law spouse was a Canadian citizen
and that he had other family members also residing in Canada. In contrast, he
had absolutely no family or network of support in Vietnam where the living
conditions are poor.
[14]
Mr. Tran relied on the fact that he works
extremely hard as a roofer to support his extended family, which is often
difficult due to the seasonal nature of the roofing industry. However, the only
evidence on file is that he pays $560 per month for 2 of his children. As noted
by the sentencing judge in his reasons, according to Mr. Tran, it was his
financial needs that prompted his implication in the grow op which resulted in
his conviction. He also raised the fact that the offence for which he was
convicted was a non-violent one.
II.
The decision of the Minister’s delegate
[15]
On October 10, 2013, the Minister’s delegate
endorsed the opinion of the CBSA officer, summarized in the “Subsection 44(1) and 56 Highlights – Inland cases (Short)”
dated October 7, 2013 (the Report), that the matter should be referred to the
ID (see Appeal Book, Vol. 1, Tab 5, pp. 25-27).
[16]
In the Report, the CBSA officer, in accordance
with the Enforcement Manual, considered all of the factors raised by Mr. Tran, his
criminal history, past compliance, current attitude, his potential for
rehabilitation, the circumstances surrounding the offence for which he was
convicted and the sentence imposed.
[17]
The CBSA officer noted in particular that
contrary to what was represented to the sentencing judge, the CDSA conviction was
not Mr. Tran’s first and only criminal conviction as he had been convicted a few
days before the sentencing hearing of impaired driving (Appeal Book, Vol II,
Tab 61). The officer indicated that it is not the nature of the other
conviction that is relevant but rather the fact that Mr. Tran had knowingly
refrained from telling the whole truth to the court who relied on this very
fact to give him a conditional sentence of imprisonment as opposed to the term
of incarceration requested by the Crown prosecutor.
[18]
In addition, after noting that none of Mr.
Tran’s other arrests and stayed charges listed in the Report since 1998 had resulted
in a conviction, the officer wrote that he considered the evidence relating to
these events (such as police reports) to assess Mr. Tran’s prospect of
rehabilitation and his overall credibility. This was, in his view, relevant as Mr.
Tran presented himself as a highly moral character who had lived in Canada for 24
years “without incident”. He concluded that Mr. Tran’s
behaviour could not be described “as pristine or
upstanding in the context of these arrests, some for serious offences.”
[19]
Although the officer acknowledged that the CDSA offence
for which Mr. Tran was convicted and sentenced did not involve any violence, he
noted that the level of production of marijuana involved contributes to a
larger and very violent problem involving the production of controlled
substances in British Columbia. In his view, the size of the grow op suggested
an element of organization as the quantity would have been difficult to produce
and manage on one’s own. He wrote that, in Lower Mainland British Columbia,
such a grow op does not happen in a vacuum and is often linked to more serious
crimes including gang violence.
[20]
The officer noted that the recent changes in the
CDSA regarding the sentence for this type of offence also indicate how
seriously Parliament views them. While the increased sentence could not be
imposed upon Mr. Tran, it certainly did not mean that Parliament did not view
this offence as serious in 2011; it simply had yet to enact the legislative
amendments. After again acknowledging that in the absence of a conviction,
prior arrests and stayed charges would have been given little weight by the
sentencing judge, the officer stated that his own assessment was based on more
informal factors than criminal justice including the letters from friends and
family. Therefore, he believed that it was appropriate for him to consider the
reliable evidence provided by the police. Having noted that the period to be
considered for rehabilitation was rather short, the officer added:
TRAN has now been crime-free for a year and
a half, his history shows that he tends to get arrested every couple of years.
By failing to acknowledge any of his past problems, particularly his very
recent conviction, it is my opinion that TRAN is not accepting responsibility
for his actions. Based on the little information before me, I can only assume
he will reoffend because he has done so in the past and because he has
not demonstrated any inclination to take responsibility for anything beyond
what he thinks immigration officials are aware of. Counsel states that “[he]
was never an addict and therefore does not undergo AA or other similar
programs”. The existence of 3 arrests and 1 conviction for operation while
impaired suggests this may not be the case.
(Emphasis added)
[21]
There is no need here to refer to the officer’s
comments with respect to the mitigating factors put forth by Mr. Tran, such as
the best interests of the children, as these are not directly relevant to the
issues before us in this appeal. Before us, Mr. Tran did not argue that there
was a reviewable error in this respect. Thus, it is sufficient to say that the
report concludes as follows:
Based on all of the above information, and
in consideration of the submissions made by counsel, it is my opinion that this
report should be referred to a hearing. TRAN has been involved in a serious
criminal offence. The evidence provided is that he has been involved in
criminal activity in the past and that he is not taking full responsibility for
his actions. The mitigating factors (establishment, family, hardship in
Vietnam, etc) are overshadowed by the seriousness of the offence, TRAN’s
conduct in society, and the lack of any indication his behavior will improve.
III.
The Federal Court’s decision
[22]
The judge chose reasonableness as the standard
of review applicable to all of the questions before him - the interpretation of
paragraph 36(1)(a) of the IRPA and the overall merits of the decision.
[23]
With respect to the interpretation of paragraph
36(1)(a), the judge found that it was unreasonable to construe the words
“term of imprisonment” as including a
conditional sentence of imprisonment because:
i.
In R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, [2000] 1
S.C.R. 61 [Proulx] and R. v. Middleton, 2009 SCC 21, [2009] 1
S.C.R. 674 [Middleton], the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the
meaning of these words depended on the context and did not always include
conditional sentences across the whole federal statutes book;
ii.
Relying on Proulx, at paragraph 21, where
the Court stated that a conditional sentence “is a meaningful alternative to
incarceration for less serious and non-dangerous offenders”, the judge found
that to include them would be at odds with the purpose of paragraph 36(1)(a)
which deals with serious criminality;
iii.
In Medovarski v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 51, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 539 [Medovarski],
the Supreme Court of Canada, referring to paragraph 36(1)(a), said at
paragraph 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.
(Emphasis added)
[24]
On the second issue – meaning of “offence punishable by a maximum term of at least 10 years”,
the judge distinguished this Court’s decision in Sanchez v. Canada
(Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FCA 157, 464 N.R. 333 [Sanchez],
noting that, contrary to Article 1F(b) of the Convention Relating to
the Status of Refugees, 1951, 28 July 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 137, at issue
in that case, paragraph 36(1)(a) refers to the maximum punishment
available at the time of conviction (judge’s reasons at para. 19,
emphasis added).
[25]
Then, the judge mistakenly stated that Mr. Tran
was not convicted of a crime punishable by at least 10 years as “[t]he maximum sentence at the time of his conviction
was 7 years” (judge’s reasons at para. 20, emphasis added). Furthermore,
the judge noted that while the maximum sentence was subsequently raised
to 14 years, Mr. Tran was not punishable by a sentence of that duration. It is
unclear if the judge mistakenly believed that the maximum sentence was raised
after Mr. Tran was convicted (his use of the words “subsequently
raised”), or if he meant to say that, because of subsections 11(g)
and (i) of the Charter, the amendment which was made before his
conviction but after he committed the offence would not apply to him (his use
of the words “Mr. Tran was not punishable”).
However, the judge did not refer to these sections of the Charter in his
reasons.
[26]
Finally, the judge found that the overall
decision was unreasonable because the Minister’s delegate had relied on arrests
and unproven charges to find that Mr. Tran would likely “reoffend because he had done so in the past” (judge’s
reasons at para. 23).
[27]
I note that the judge never expressly dealt with
the interpretation of paragraph 36(1)(a) that he used in his certified
question (see paragraph 4 above), that is, whether this provision refers to a
maximum term of imprisonment available at the time the person was sentenced
(see paragraphs 24 and 25 above).
IV.
Legislation
[28]
Paragraph 36(1) of the IRPA reads as follows:
|
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27
|
Loi sur l’immigration et la protection
des réfugiés, L.C.
2001, ch. 27
|
|
Serious criminality
|
Grande criminalité
|
|
36. (1) A permanent resident or a
foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality for
|
36. (1)
Emportent interdiction de territoire pour grande criminalité les faits
suivants :
|
|
(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;
|
a) être
déclaré coupable au Canada d’une infraction à une loi fédérale punissable
d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans ou d’une infraction à une loi
fédérale pour laquelle un emprisonnement de plus de six mois est infligé;
|
|
(b) having been convicted of an
offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an
offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of
imprisonment of at least 10 years; or
|
b) être
déclaré coupable, à l’extérieur du Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au
Canada, constituerait une infraction à une loi fédérale punissable d’un
emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans;
|
|
(c) committing an act outside Canada
that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed
in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable
by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.
|
c)
commettre, à l’extérieur du Canada, une infraction qui, commise au Canada,
constituerait une infraction à une loi fédérale punissable d’un
emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.
|
[29]
Additional relevant legislative provisions are
reproduced in Appendix A.
V.
Issues
[30]
The role of this Court on appeal from a decision
of the Federal Court dealing with an application for judicial review is to
determine whether the judge chose the appropriate standard of review and
applied it properly to the issues before him (Agraira v. Canada (Public
Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36 at paras. 45-47, [2013] 2 S.C.R.
559).
[31]
Thus, in the present appeal, where there is no
dispute that the judge chose the appropriate standard (see also Najafi v.
Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2014 FCA 262 at para. 56,
379 D.L.R. (4th) 542), the issues are:
i.
Was the Minister’s interpretation of paragraph
36(1)(a) of the IRPA reasonable (see particularly the certified question
at paragraph 4 above)?
ii.
Was the decision on the merits reasonable?
[32]
In his memorandum, the Minister briefly raised a
new argument that was not presented to the judge. He said that this Court
should not decide the appeal given that the issues raised before the Minister’s
delegate could be re-argued before the ID at the admissibility hearing. It is
thus premature to deal with them now. Mr. Tran submits that this argument is
surprising given that the Minister sought an expedited hearing of the appeal on
the basis that the judge’s decision was creating chaos and confusion. Mr. Tran also
objects to this Court dealing with this new argument because he has already
incurred legal costs to deal with the Minister’s appeal and because CBSA’s
determination that he does not have a right to appeal (pursuant to subsection
64(2) of the IRPA) will not be reviewed before the ID if it considers that he
was convicted of an offence punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10
years or more.
[33]
The Minister did not insist on this new argument
at the hearing before us. He acknowledged that there are several cases
currently pending involving the same issues and that it would be important to
deal with these issues as soon as possible. I am aware of at least one application
for judicial review that was scheduled for hearing before the Federal Court that
has been adjourned pending a decision from this Court on the certified
questions. This Court has the discretion to deal with a new issue on appeal but,
after careful consideration, I have concluded that it would be inappropriate to
do so in this somewhat exceptional case.
VI.
Analysis
A.
The interpretation of subsection 36(1) of the
IRPA
[34]
The Minister’s delegate did not deal expressly
with the legal arguments raised by Mr. Tran in the decision. According to the Minister,
it is implicit that the Minister’s delegate considered that Mr. Tran’s case
fell within the ambit of subsection 36(1) of the IRPA either because:
i.
The offence for which he was convicted was
punishable at the time his admissibility was assessed by a term of imprisonment
of more than ten years; and/or
ii.
He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
more than six months.
[35]
In fact, the CBSA’s decision to seek additional
submissions because of the absence of an appeal could only be based on the fact
that Mr. Tran had been punished by a term of imprisonment of at least 6 months
(section 64 of the IRPA).
B.
Offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by
a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years
[36]
I will start my analysis with the first criteria
set out in paragraph 36(1)(a) of the IRPA. The first issue to consider
is whether this criteria is an objective one, that is: Whether the maximum
punishment is to be assessed simply by reference to the terms of the Act of
Parliament setting out the offence, or whether it refers only to the maximum
punishment that could actually be imposed on the person (subjective criteria).
In other words – is it the offence described in the Act of Parliament or Mr.
Tran himself that must be punishable by the maximum term set out in paragraph
36(1)(a).
[37]
The parties agree that if the judge’s
interpretation, at paragraph 19 of his reasons – that the offence must be
punishable by a maximum term of more than ten years at the time Mr. Tran was
convicted, refers to the maximum punishment provided for in the CDSA
(objective criteria), then Mr. Tran’s case is captured by subsection 36(1)
because, contrary to the judge’s statement in his reasons, the offence was
indeed punishable by more than ten years on November 29, 2012.
[38]
The Minister submits that not only is this
criteria objective, but also that it is the maximum punishment provided for in
the legislation in force when the admissibility is assessed that is relevant.
In this respect, the Minister relies on, among other things, the fact that this
is how this section has been applied in its various iterations since at least
1979 (see Robertson referred to in paragraph 54).
[39]
Mr. Tran argues that whatever the correct time
is to determine whether or not paragraph 36(1)(a) applies to him – the
date of his conviction or the date his admissibility is assessed, paragraph 36(1)(a)
never in fact applied to him because it was never open to the court to punish
him by imposing a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more. In his view,
this criteria must be applied taking into account his personal situation –
whether the punishment provided for in the CDSA, either at the time he was
convicted or his admissibility was assessed, was “available”
to use the word of the judge. Here, because of the application of subsections
11(g) and (i) of the Charter, Mr. Tran was never
punishable by a term of imprisonment of 10 years or more for this offence.
[40]
As to the version of the Act of Parliament that
is generally relevant if any, Mr. Tran says that the interpretation adopted by
the Minister’s delegate and proposed by the Minister would result in an
absurdity. It would mean that any permanent resident ever convicted of an
offence, be it twenty-five years ago or more, would be exposed to deportation
for a crime which was not considered serious when it was committed or when the
person was convicted of it. In addition, he submits that this interpretation
effectively gives a retrospective and retroactive effect to the CDSA by
employing a retrospective application of immigration law. This is contrary to a
fundamental principle of criminal law and violates the presumption against the
retrospective and retroactive operation of statutes. In Mr. Tran’s view, paragraph
36(1)(a) increases his liability or punishment for his past criminal conduct.
[41]
Although the Minister’s delegate clearly
disagreed with the arguments put forth by Mr. Tran in his submissions, he
appears to have at least taken into consideration the seriousness of the crime
at the time it was committed as part of the factors or relevant surrounding
circumstances to be considered before deciding whether the matter should be referred
to the ID.
[42]
We do not have the benefit of a purposive and
contextual analysis of paragraph 36(1)(a) from the Minister’s delegate. Mr.
Tran did not argue that this constituted a breach of procedural fairness; rather,
he argued that the decision is unreasonable because the Minister’s delegate
misconstrued and misapplied this provision.
[43]
The absence of reasons in respect of the
interpretation of subsection 36(1) may explain why the judge simply gave his
own view of the proper interpretation of the relevant provision before concluding
that the decision was unreasonable. But, even if the judge’s interpretation was
correct, this is not what he was mandated to do. Indeed, he had to assess whether
the interpretation adopted by the decision maker fell within the range of interpretations
defensible on the law and the facts.
[44]
In Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9,
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, at paragraph 48, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that
the court must look at “the reasons offered or which
could be offered in support of a decision” (citation removed, emphasis
added). In Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and
Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708, at paragraph 12,
where no reasons had been given by the original decision maker, Justice Abella,
writing for the Court, held that a court reviewing an administrative decision
must seek to supplement the reasons before it seeks to subvert them. Thus, I
understand the Supreme Court of Canada to be saying that deference due to a
tribunal does not disappear because its decision on a certain issue is
implicit.
[45]
In cases, like this, where it is not evident
that only one interpretation is defensible, it is quite difficult to do what the
Supreme Court of Canada mandates us to do given the number of interpretative
presumptions and principles that can be considered and applied. Some further
guidance would certainly be welcomed in that respect, especially when the
relative weight to be given to competing presumptions and interpretative tools
has never been clearly dealt with by the Supreme Court of Canada.
[46]
The Supreme Court of Canada very recently reminded
us that:
When assessing the reasonableness of an
administrative decision maker’s interpretation, Driedger’s modern rule of
statutory interpretation provides helpful guidance:
Today there is only one principle or
approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context
and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the
Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.(E.A. Driedger, Construction
of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983), at p. 87)
Wilson v. British Columbia (Superintendent
of Motor Vehicles), 2015 SCC 47 at para. 18, [2015] S.C.J. No. 47 (QL).
[47]
I will thus first consider the purpose of the
IRPA and of section 36. The Supreme Court of Canada in Medovarski, at
paragraph 10, described them as follows:
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. […] 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.
[48]
Turning now to the wording of paragraph 36(1)(a),
one notes that it contains two distinct criteria. It is indeed the only paragraph
that does so in subsection 36(1) of the IRPA. On my reading of the said
paragraph, the word “punishable”, both in French
and in English, refers to the offence under the Act of Parliament and not to
the punishment that could in fact be imposed on the offender. The language does
not suggest that it is the particular offender that must be punishable by the
maximum term set out therein. Thus, the literal meaning of the words read in
the context of the paragraph appears to support the interpretation adopted by
the Minister’s delegate.
[49]
I now turn to the immediate context and note
that the same expression, “an offence under an Act of
Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years”,
is also used in the paragraphs dealing with serious criminality committed
outside of Canada that if committed in Canada would constitute an offence under
an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least
10 years (paragraphs 36(1)(b) and (c)). In respect of offences
committed abroad, it is clear that the criteria is an objective one. It is even
clearer when one considers that a foreign national would not even have to be convicted
at all, either in Canada or abroad, to be considered inadmissible under
paragraph 36(1)(c).
[50]
Subsection 36(2) (see Appendix A) deals with
other criminality as a ground for inadmissibility. It is relevant to this
analysis in that it uses phraseology similar to that of paragraph 36(1)(a).
Indeed, criminality in paragraph 36(2)(a) is defined as “having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an
Act of Parliament punishable by way of indictment or of two offences under
any Act of Parliament not arising out of a single occurrence” (emphasis
added). Again, this criminality can involve offences committed in Canada as
well as outside of Canada (paragraphs 36(2)(b)(c) and (d)).
The fact that the criteria set out in this subsection (36(2)) is an objective
one is made absolutely clear when one considers paragraph 36(3)(a) of
the IRPA (see Appendix A) that provides that an offence that may be prosecuted
either summarily or by way of indictment is deemed to be an indictable offence
within the meaning of subsection 36(2) even if it was in fact prosecuted
summarily.
[51]
At this stage of my analysis, I find that the
interpretation adopted by the Minister’s delegate (objective criteria) appears
to be reasonable. I now turn to the issue of whether the interpretation of the Minister’s
delegate that Mr. Tran’s admissibility should be assessed on the basis of the legislation
in force at the time of his assessment is reasonable.
[52]
I agree with the judge that the wording of
paragraph 36(1)(a) itself could support an interpretation that the time
at which one must assess whether an offence was punishable under the Act of
Parliament by the maximum term set out in paragraph 36(1)(a) is the time
at which the person was convicted. But the wording in that respect is not as
clear as the judge appears to have considered it.
[53]
The Minister submits that when one considers the
wording of paragraph 36(1)(a) in its context, particularly its
legislative objective and the wording of section 33 of the IRPA (see Appendix A), the interpretation adopted by the decision maker
is reasonable. He notes that in Edmond v. Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration), 2012 FC 674, [2012] F.C.J. no. 688 (Q.L.), Justice Tremblay-Lamer
of the Federal Court came to that conclusion after applying the Driedger modern
rule of interpretation to construe paragraph 36(1)(c) of the IRPA. The
Minister adds that, even before the adoption of the IRPA, previous iterations
of the provisions dealing with inadmissibility based on an offence committed
outside of Canada were consistently construed as requiring one to consider the
legislative punishment for the offence as of the date admissibility was
assessed or the deportation order was issued (see Ward v. Canada (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration), 125 F.T.R. 1, [1996] F.C.J. No. 1687 (QL)
at paras. 16-18; Weso v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
[1998] F.C.J. No. 1945 (QL) at paras. 7-8).
[54]
I agree that it makes sense to construe
paragraph 36(1)(a) in that respect in the same manner as paragraphs
36(1)(b) or (c). In fact, in Robertson v. Canada (Minister of
Employment & Immigration) (1978), [1979] 1 F.C. 197, 91 D.L.R. (3d) 93
(C.A.) [Robertson], the theft of goods valued at $50.00 was punishable
by a maximum sentence of 10 years of imprisonment when Mr. Robertson was
convicted but was not viewed as deserving such a punishment when his
admissibility was assessed. This is clearly the other side of the coin of the
argument and example put forth by Mr. Tran and is certainly as potent an
argument as the one he raises now – that a person could have been convicted 25
years ago for a crime that was not viewed as serious but which is now assessed
as being serious.
[55]
But to give effect to both sides of this coin,
one would have to adopt an interpretation that for all material purposes gives
effect to subsection 11(i) of the Charter. That section does not
apply in the present context because the proceedings before the Minister’s
delegate are neither criminal nor penal.
[56]
It is also important to consider that, as
reaffirmed in Medovarski
at paragraph 46, the most fundamental principle of immigration law is that
non-citizens do not have an unqualified right to enter or remain in Canada (Canada
(Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Chiarelli, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711 at
p. 733, 90 D.L.R. (4th) 289).
[57]
The legislative objective here is not to punish
or be unfair to an offender but rather to determine whether a person should be
granted the privilege of remaining in Canada. The interpretation adopted by the
Minister’s delegate is, thus, consistent with the legislative purpose of the provision
under review.
[58]
I agree with the comments of Justice Russell in Sanchez
v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 913 at para. 60, 438
F.T.R. 279, aff’d in Sanchez, above, that “[i]t
is for Canada to decide who it regards as undeserving, and Canada’s views on
that may well change from time to time as Parliament alters its views on
particular crimes. A crime previously regarded with more leniency may well be
seen as much more threatening and repugnant as times and governments change.”
These comments, albeit made in a different context, are apposite here. Unless
the legislator clearly provides otherwise, admissibility under subsection 36(1)
should logically be tested against Canada’s prevailing views of the seriousness
of the offence in question.
[59]
As noted by the Minister at the hearing, there
is little doubt that if an offence was benign at the time the person committed
it in Canada, say 25 years ago as proposed by Mr. Tran, and the person had not
committed any crime since that time, then there would likely be compelling
reasons to not refer the person to the ID.
[60]
In view of the foregoing, and although there may
well be other defensible interpretations, I cannot conclude that the
interpretation adopted by the Minister’s delegate is unreasonable. Therefore,
the answer to the second certified question is as follows:
The phrase “punishable
by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years” in paragraph
36(1)(a) of the IRPA can reasonably be interpreted as the maximum term
of imprisonment under the law in force at the time admissibility is determined.
C.
The meaning of a “term of imprisonment” in
paragraph 36(1)(a) of the IRPA
[61]
I will now address the second criteria set out
in paragraph 36(1)(a) dealing with the actual sentence imposed by a
judge on an offender who is a permanent resident or a foreign national. It is
what Mr. Tran considers the most important question in this appeal because it
can also determine whether he will have the right to appeal to the Immigration
Appeal Division (IAD) under section 63 of the IRPA (see
Appendix A). In the context of such an appeal, Mr. Tran would have the benefit
of an assessment of his case on humanitarian and compassionate grounds by the
IAD before any removal order could be executed.
[62]
I need not repeat here what I have already said
about the legislative objectives of IRPA in paragraph 36(1)(a) (see
paragraph 47 above). I will note however that in Medovarski the Supreme
Court of Canada also dealt with the purpose of enacting section 64. It found
that the legislative purpose was the efficient removal from the country of
persons who engaged in serious criminality (Medovarski, paras. 12-13).
[63]
When the IRPA was adopted in 2002, the
expression term of “imprisonment” (emprisonnement)
was used in three specific provisions – sections 36, 50 and subsection 64(2).
[64]
Although for a lay person a term of imprisonment
is generally understood as time spent in prison or in incarceration, it has a
wider meaning when used in the context of determining what sentence may be
imposed for a criminal offence under an Act of Parliament.
[65]
It is clear that pursuant to section 742.1 of
the Criminal Code (see Appendix A), and subject
to various exceptions added in 2007 and 2012, a term of imprisonment of less
than two years can be served in the community rather than in jail. It is
understood that should the conditions imposed by the sentencing judge be
breached, the offender may end up serving the rest of his term in jail.
[66]
In a series of decisions (Proulx, above; R.
v. Wu, 2003 SCC 73, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 530; R. v. Fice, 2005 SCC 32, [2005]
1 S.C.R. 742; Middleton, above) the Supreme Court of Canada also made it
clear that although generally a sentence of “imprisonment”
will be understood to include conditional terms of imprisonment when referring
to a sentence under the Criminal Code, there may be cases where the Driedger
modern rule of interpretation will require that the expression be limited to a
carceral term of imprisonment.
[67]
However, as noted by the Minister, in Middleton,
both Justice Fish, writing for the majority (paragraphs 10-11), and Justice
Binnie, in his concurring reasons (paragraph 57), acknowledged that the general
rule applies unless Parliament clearly indicates to the contrary. In
that case, Justice Fish in fact stated that the textual consideration of the
provision itself, which expressly referred to “confinement”
and “prison”, was sufficient and made it plain
that conditional sentences of imprisonment could not come within the meaning
of “sentence of imprisonment” in section 732(1) of
the Criminal Code.
[68]
Mr. Tran says, and the judge accepted, that here,
considering the particular purpose of paragraph 36(1)(a) –
inadmissibility based on serious criminality as opposed to other
criminality (subsection 36(2)), the expression should be construed as referring
only to sentences imposing time in jail.
[69]
At the hearing, and in the brief written
submissions filed thereafter, it became clear that for Mr. Tran the law must
always speak (Article 10 of the Interpretation Act (R.S.C. 1985, c.
I-21)) (see Appendix A). Thus, even if it may have been
plausible (albeit not the correct interpretation in his view) to include a
conditional term of imprisonment within the meaning of paragraph 36(1)(a)
in 2002 when the IRPA was adopted, this can no longer be so today. Indeed, in
his view, when one considers the amendments to sections 742.1 to 742.7 of the Criminal
Code made in 2007 and 2012 which now clearly limit the ability of judges to
use conditional terms of imprisonment for less serious crimes than when Proulx
and Middleton were decided and the IRPA was adopted and only where the
sentencing judge is satisfied that the offender is not a danger to the
community, it would be contrary to the legislative purpose of the provision and
of subsection 64(2) to apply them to conditional terms of imprisonment.
[70]
However, as will be discussed, the seriousness
of a crime or an offence is a matter of opinion.
[71]
In fact, the sentencing judge in this case
referred to jurisprudence dealing with similar offences and said, at paragraph
31 of his reasons (Appeal Book, Vol. 2, Tab 61, p. 365):
Intelligent people and informed people
disagree about the seriousness of these offences, and they are entitled to.
Obviously, it makes it more difficult when judicial officers that are placed,
as far as superiority level, above this court, disagree, and they have over the
years.
[72]
Moreover, to say that a conditional term of
imprisonment is more lenient and applies only to less serious crimes than a
similar term of incarceration does not necessarily mean that such crimes are
not viewed by the legislator as serious enough to warrant being inadmissible
pursuant to paragraph 36(1)(a). There is still a wide margin between the
offences described in subsection 36(2), which even includes offences under the
IRPA, and those for which a conditional term of imprisonment can now be
imposed.
[73]
The parties were agreed that the legislative
evolution of paragraph 36(1)(a) is not particularly helpful to determining
the issue before us. However, the legislative evolution of section 50 of the
IRPA does shed some light, and generally one is presumed to intend to use the
same words with the same meaning in the sections in which it appears. Prior to
the adoption of IRPA, section 50 read as follows:
|
50 […]
|
50 […]
|
|
(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.
|
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.
|
[74]
It now reads as follows:
|
Stay
|
Sursis
|
|
50. A removal order is stayed
|
50. Il
y a sursis de la mesure de renvoi dans les cas suivants :
|
|
[…]
|
[…]
|
|
(b) in the case of a foreign national sentenced to a term of
imprisonment in Canada, until the sentence is completed;
|
b) tant que n’est pas purgée la peine d’emprisonnement
infligée au Canada à l’étranger
|
[75]
It is generally presumed that when the
legislator amends a provision to such an extent, it intends to change its
ambit. Section 50 of the IRPA is applied to conditional terms of imprisonment
by the CBSA who will not enforce a removal order until an offender has served
his or her conditional term of imprisonment in the community. This is set out
in chapter ENF 10 of the Enforcement Manual dealing with removals (Joint Book
of Authorities, Vol. 4, Tab 114). A note at page 31 of the Enforcement Manual ENF
10 indicates that this interpretation was adopted after extensive research and
detailed consultation with both the CBSA and CIC Legal Services.
[76]
Although neither the CIC Enforcement Manual nor
the views expressed by the Immigration Section of the Canadian Bar Association,
which I will discuss later on, have much weight, they still suggest that the
interpretation of the Minister’s delegate is at least plausible after careful
consideration by specialists in the field.
[77]
Much has been made of the fact that in Medovarski,
the Court used the words “prison term” when
discussing both subsections 64(2) and 36(1).
[78]
I note that what was at issue in that case was
never the meaning of the words “term of imprisonment”
but rather the transitionary provision applicable to subsection 64(2) of the
IRPA. At that time subsection 64(2) only applied when a term of imprisonment of
two years or more was imposed. Thus, in reality it could only apply to jail
time because a term of imprisonment of two years or more could not then be
served, and still cannot be served, in the community.
[79]
It is worth mentioning that in Medovarski,
the Court discussed a practical argument presented by Ms. Medovarski as it may
be pertinent to assess whether the provision as construed by the Minister’s
delegate will have the disastrous “result”
argued by Mr. Tran. At paragraphs 40 and 41 in Medovarski, the Court
dealt with the argument that in practice applicants and permanent residents
wishing to avoid losing their right of appeal due to a finding of inadmissibility
for serious criminality have asked the sentencing judge to consider the impact
of section 64 before giving judgement. This means that permanent residents and
foreign nationals who wish to avoid the impact of section 64 may convince a
court to give them a shorter term of jail time instead of conditional terms of
imprisonment of 6 months or longer so as to avoid the impact of such a sentence
on their admissibility and their right of appeal. The Court acknowledged that
permanent residents and foreign nationals sentenced before the provision came
into force would have been denied the opportunity to make such submissions.
However, the Court described this situation as “obvious”
and said that Parliament had chosen not to account for it.
[80]
That said, and coming back to the interpretation
of the section in context, as mentioned earlier,
section 64 was amended to reduce the term of imprisonment provided for therein
to six months or more in 2013. The fact that it would apply to offenders
sentenced to serve their term of imprisonment in the community was expressly raised
by the National Immigration Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association who
recommended that any amendment to subsection 64(2) should include some language
to clarify that a term of imprisonment did not include conditional terms of
imprisonment of the duration set out in this provision.
[81]
The legislative history is particularly relevant
in this case to assessing what I consider the most serious argument militating
against the interpretation adopted by the Minister’s delegate: the inconsistent
consequences and even absurdity when one considers that the IRPA treats a
conditional sentence of imprisonment of seven months more severely than a five
months jail term.
[82]
The Minister has compiled several extracts of
the legislative history stating that it is quite instructive in this case. I
first recall that Justice Binnie, writing for the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada
3000 Inc., Re; Inter-Canadian (1991) Inc. (Trustee of), 2006 SCC 24 at
para. 57, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 865, noted:
Though of limited weight, Hansard evidence
can assist in determining the background and purpose of legislation; […]. In
this case, it confirms Parliament’s apparent intent to exclude legal titleholders
from personal liability for air navigation charges. The legislative history
and the statute itself make it clear that Parliament did not intend CANSCA
to replace or override the existing regulatory framework […].
[83]
In that case, the material relied upon by
Justice Binnie appeared to be quite persuasive as to the meaning of particular
words in the provision under review. In my view, this is equally so here.
[84]
According to the Honourable Jason Kenney, then
Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, the purpose of
lowering the threshold for precluding an appeal to the IAD was to prevent those
convicted of serious crimes from abusing the system by delaying their
deportation for years (House of Commons. Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration, Evidence, 1st Sess., 41st Parl., Meeting No. 54, 24 October 2012
at 2, 4 (Joint Book of Authorities, Vol. 4, Tab 118)). Throughout the debates
of the House of Commons and Senate and the proceedings before the House of
Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and the Standing
Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, there was debate as
to how to define “serious criminality” and
whether equating it with crimes resulting in a sentence of more than six months
struck the proper balance: see, for example, House of Commons Debates, 41st.
Parl., 1st Sess., No. 199 (29 January 2013) at 13369 (Mylène Freeman
(Argenteuil-Papineau-Mirabel, NDP)), 13359-70 (Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre,
CPC)), 13375 (John Weston (West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country,
CPC)) (Joint Book of Authorities, Vol. 4, Tab 123); Proceedings of the Standing
Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, No. 38 (1-2 May
2013) at 38:13, 38:14, 38:52 (Senator Art Eggleton), 38:46 (Julie Taub,
Immigration and Refugee Lawyer) (Joint Book of Authorities, Vol. 4, Tab 126).
[85]
Various participants noted that conditional terms
of imprisonment fell within the provision as drafted, as well as the potential
unfairness of precluding appeals for those on whom a conditional sentence of imprisonment
of more than six months had been imposed, whereas those on whom jail terms of
lesser lengths were imposed were not so precluded, even though these punitive
measures are considered equivalent or harsher: see, for example, House of
Commons. Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, Evidence, 1st
Sess., 41st Parl., Meeting No. 62, 21 November 2012 at p. 2 (Ahmed Hussen
(National President, Canadian Somali Congress)) (Joint Book of Authorities,
Vol. 4, Tab 121); Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Social
Affairs, Science and Technology, Meeting No. 38 (1-2 May 2013) 38:44 (Gordon
Maynard (Past Chair, National Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar
Association)) (Joint Book of Authorities, Vol. 4, Tab 126); Meeting No. 39 (8-9
May 2013) at 39:20 (Senator Art Eggleton) (Joint Book of Authorities, Vol. 4,
Tab 127). Several discussions prompted the proposal of three distinct motions
to expressly exclude conditional sentences from the provision, each of which
was defeated: House of Commons. Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration, Evidence, 1st Sess., 41st Parl., Meeting No. 64, 28 November 2012
at 2, 4 (Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton-North Delta, NDP)), 4, 7 (Kevin Lamoureux
(Winnipeg North, Lib.)) (Joint Book of Authorities, Vol. 4, Tab 122); Debates
of the Senate, 41st Parl., 1st Sess., No.168 (30 May 2013) at 4081-4082
(Senator Art Eggleton) (Joint Book of Authorities, Vol. 4, Tab 128).
[86]
The opinion that Parliament still views terms of
imprisonment of more than six months served in the community as serious enough
to warrant losing one’s right of appeal of a finding of inadmissibility is certainly
supported by the legislative history when subsection 64(2) was amended in 2013
allegedly to put it in line with paragraph 36(1)(a). Although such
interpretative tools are typically given less weight than others, I simply
cannot conclude that the interpretation of the Minister’s delegate, which the
legislative history appears to support, should be found unreasonable on the
basis that it produces inconsistent consequences which might be regarded as absurd.
These inconsistencies were clearly spelled out and considered before the
adoption of subsection 64(2) and no change was made to exclude those inconsistent
consequences.
[87]
In the circumstances, considering the current
teachings of the Supreme Court of Canada and although there may clearly be
other defensible interpretations, I cannot conclude that the interpretation
adopted by the Minister’s delegate in this case is unreasonable. Obviously the
deference granted to administrative decision makers is in part meant to give
them flexibility to adjust to new arguments and circumstances. It is thus
obviously open to the ID and the IAD to adopt another interpretation should
they believe that it is warranted by the inconsistent consequences described
above. But this would likely have to be applied to the three provisions in the
IRPA where the expression “term of imprisonment”
is used.
[88]
Thus, I propose to answer the first certified
question as follows:
A conditional
sentence of imprisonment imposed pursuant to the regime set out in ss. 742 to
742.7 of the Criminal Code may reasonably be construed as a term of
imprisonment under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the IRPA.
D.
Is the decision to refer reasonable?
[89]
The judge appears to have found that the officer
treated arrests, charges and police reports as evidence of criminal behaviour
because he found that Mr. Tran would likely reoffend because he has done so in
the past. The judge noted that those charges and arrests are not evidence or
proof of criminal conduct.
[90]
In my view, it is evident that the officer was
well aware of the distinction between arrests, stayed charges and criminal
convictions. He says so in his report. He simply felt that he could consider
this information, as well as the information contained in the police reports,
for his broader assessment of Mr. Tran’s behaviour and rehabilitation prospects.
[91]
I agree with the officer that he was entitled to
consider this information to assess certain statements made by Mr. Tran, such
as that his behaviour was pristine (without incident) for a long period before
his two convictions and whether he was taking full responsibility for his past
behaviour. It also put in perspective the relative short period of time since
his last conviction.
[92]
As to the use of the words “reoffend as he has done so in the past” this must be
read in context. Mr. Tran had effectively already two convictions and as
mentioned earlier, the officer acknowledged the difference between arrest and
conviction.
[93]
Although there is no doubt that not all
information contained in police reports is to be considered credible evidence
simply because it is reported by the police, I have reviewed the actual reports
before the officer and they do contain some credible information as to the
behaviour of Mr. Tran, particularly his consumption of alcohol and its impact
on his behaviour. It would have clearly been preferable if the officer had been
more specific in the Report as to which information in the police report he
actually considered to be reliable and of value to his assessment. However, I
am not satisfied that his failure to do so in this case justifies quashing the
decision.
[94]
In view of the foregoing, I conclude that the
judge did not properly apply the standard of review to the overall conclusion
of the Minister’s delegate. The decision to refer Mr. Tran to the ID was within
the range of outcomes defensible on the law and the facts.
[95]
In light of the foregoing, I propose to allow
this appeal.
"Johanne Gauthier"
|
“I agree
|
|
C. Michael Ryer”
|
|
“I agree
|
|
D.G. Near”
|
Email this Content