The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has ruled 8-0 that foreign nationals believed to have committed violent acts cannot be deported unless they have been convicted and there is a connection to national security.
Mr. Mason was a citizen of Saint Lucia and a “foreign national,” meaning that he was neither a Canadian citizen nor a permanent resident. He was married to a Canadian citizen and had two daughters in Canada, moving to Canada in June 2010. He applied for permanent residence with his wife’s sponsorship.
He was in a bar in Surrey, B.C., and got into an altercation with another man.
“The man broke a beer bottle over Mr. Mason’s head, and Mr. Mason responded by drawing a gun from his waistband and firing it eight times, wounding his assailant and another man,” said the SCC decision.
In May 2014, Mr. Mason was charged with two counts of attempted murder and two counts of discharging a firearm with intent to wound or disfigure. The shooting was not linked to terrorism or organized crime. In 2015, the charges were stayed because of delay. As a result, Mr. Mason was not found guilty of any criminal offence.
In an unrelated case, Seifeslam Dleiow was accused of violence against intimate partners and other individuals. While some charges were stayed, he pled guilty to three charges and received a conditional discharge.
Alleged Inadmissible
The federal government alleged that both men were inadmissible to Canada on “security grounds” under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which states that a permanent resident of Canada or a foreign national can be denied admissibility to Canada for “engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada.”Both cases went to admissibility hearings with the Immigration Division.
Mr. Mason’s case ended with a ruling from the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) that inadmissibility to Canada could be based on security “in a broader sense,” namely to ensure that individual Canadians are secure from acts of violence that would or might endanger their lives or safety.
That ruling then led to the IAD applying the same interpretation to Mr. Dleiow’s case, which determined that the man was inadmissible to Canada. A deportation order was issued.
Both men then applied for judicial review to the Federal Court, which ruled in favour of the government, agreeing that no direct link was required to national security or the security of Canada.
The SCC disagreed, stating, “It was not alleged that either M or D engaged in acts of violence with a link to national security or the security of Canada.” In both cases, the SCC ruled that appeals of both men’s cases should be allowed, quashing the IAD in the case of Mr. Mason, and cancelling the deportation order in the case of Mr. Dleiow.
The key point of disagreement among the administrative decision-makers and courts, stated the SCC, is whether the “acts of violence” listed as “security grounds” in the act require a link to national security or the security of Canada, or whether the law can be applied to acts of violence more broadly even without such a link.
The SCC said definitively that an individual can only be found inadmissible under the section of the act in reference to s. 34(1)(e) “only if they engage in acts of violence with a nexus to national security or the security of Canada.”
“Where the impact of a decision on an individual’s rights and interests is severe, the reasons provided to that individual must reflect the stakes,” wrote Justice Mahmud Jamal for the majority.
