Search - contravene

A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act   (a) in the case of a foreign national, through an act or omission which contravenes, directly or indirectly, a provision of this Act; and   (b) in the case of a permanent resident, through failing to comply with subsection 27(2) or section 28.   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.   44(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. ... The Immigration Division, at the conclusion of an admissibility hearing, shall make one of the following decisions:   (a) recognize the right to enter Canada of a Canadian citizen within the meaning of the Citizenship Act, a person registered as an Indian under the Indian Act or a permanent resident;   (b) grant permanent resident status or temporary resident status to a foreign national if it is satisfied that the foreign national meets the requirements of this Act;   (c) authorize a permanent resident or a foreign national, with or without conditions, to enter Canada for further examination; or   (d) make the applicable removal order against a foreign national who has not been authorized to enter Canada, if it is not satisfied that the foreign national is not inadmissible, or against a foreign national who has been authorized to enter Canada or a permanent resident, if it is satisfied that the foreign national or the permanent resident is inadmissible.     124 (1)  Every person commits an offence who   (a) contravenes a provision of this Act for which a penalty is not specifically provided or fails to comply with a condition or obligation imposed under this Act;   (b) escapes or attempts to escape from lawful custody or detention under this Act; or   (c) employs a foreign national in a capacity in which the foreign national is not authorized under this Act to be employed.   124(2)              For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), a person who fails to exercise due diligence to determine whether employment is authorized under this Act is deemed to know that it is not authorized.   124(3)              A person referred to in subsection 148(1) shall not be found guilty of an offence under paragraph (1)(a) if it is established that they exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.   125.     ...

[Emphasis added.] [77]   The section on sanctions reads as follows: 124 (1) Every person commits an offence who (a) contravenes a provision of this Act for which a penalty is not specifically provided or fails to comply with a condition or obligation imposed under this Act; (b) escapes or attempts to escape from lawful custody or detention under this Act; or (c) employs a foreign national in a capacity in which the foreign national is not authorized under this Act to be employed. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), a person who fails to exercise due diligence to determine whether employment is authorized under this Act is deemed to know that it is not authorized. (3) A person referred to in subsection 148(1) shall not be found guilty of an offence under paragraph (1)(a) if it is established that they exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. 125 A person who commits an offence under subsection 124(1) is liable (a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or to both; or (b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both. ... They had the permit but did not comply with the conditions relating to the employer. [119]   The good faith of the appellants and the fact that they were misled were alleged [79] to urge the Court not to deem the contract of employment between the appellants and their employer absolutely null. [120]   The Court of Appeal [80] expressed an openness in stating the following: [translation] “Although articles 1411 and 1413 of the CCQ and section 41.3 of the Interpretation Act stating that ‘[p]rohibitive laws entail nullity, even if nullity is not pronounced therein’ create a presumption of the invalidity of a juridical operation that contravenes a prohibitive law, that presumption may be rebutted where it appears that the legislature’s objectives in enacting the prohibition require that the nature, circumstances and effects of that juridical operation be examined.” ...

Did the Agency contravene the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter "the  Charter "):   1.  ...   [293]   The situation might have been different if the Appellant had argued that the provisions of the Act that gave rise to the assessments contravene the Charter ...   (2.2)     Every person who   (a) contravenes subsection 241(1), or   (b) knowingly contravenes an order made under subsection 241(4.1),   is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both. ...

In these circumstances, the appellant has pleaded that the provisions of the Income Tax Act and its, to use the appellant’s word, “conflict” with other relevant laws and discriminates against the unemployed and contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. ...

S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act") would constitute unequal treatment and would thereby contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. ...

Her Majesty The Queen, 94 DTC 6075 (both decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal) considered the Charter issue in cases very similar to the present and concluded that the effect of the provisions in issue did not contravene the Charter. ...

   [13]           The appellant’s second argument was that subsection 163(1) contravenes sections 7 and 12 of the Charter. ... The penalty is imposed upon the person who failed to report the amount of income in their tax return, who would be the employee in this case. [16]          With respect to the appellant’s Charter argument, the respondent cited numerous cases where the courts have held that the civil penalties under the ITA do not contravene either sections 7 or 12 of the Charter. ... In this respect, I agree with and adopt Justice Webb’s reasons for judgment in Porter. [4] [18]          I am also of the view that subsection 163(1) does not contravene the Charter. ...

    [6]               Three grounds of appeal are raised:   a)      that the assessments are contrary to Parliament’s intent in enacting subsection 128.1(4),   b)     that the relevant provisions of the Act contravene subsection 15(1) of the Charter, and   c)      that s. 128.1(4)(b) of the Act was not properly applied to pre-immigration securities ...   [9]               The appellants argue that the departure tax provisions contravene subsection 15(1) of the Charter. ...

Contravention of section 73, 74 or 90   243. (1) Unless section 239, 241, 242 or 243.1 or subsection (2) applies, every person who contravenes section 73, 74 or 90 is liable to a penalty equal to   (a) if the contravention relates to spirits, 200% of the duty that was imposed on the spirits; or   (b) if the contravention relates to wine, $1.24 per litre of that wine.     ... Indeed, under paragraph 243(1)(a) of the Act, every person who produces spirits in a manner that contravenes section 73 (which is the case here) is liable to a penalty equal to 200% of the duty that was imposed on the spirits. ...

No one can by private agreement, validly contravene the laws of public order and good morals. ...