My Husband Ran away after 2 Month in Canada

[armoured]

Short additional comments as I had not focussed on the issue of threats:

1) Getting a lawyer makes sense for the divorce and other aspects. The lawyer should be consulted for this aspect as well.

2) Be sure to include information about the threats - and especially for example concrete information about reporting it to the police, your lawyer, help you have sought from any party, etc. - to IRCC when reporting the case.

The chances that IRCC will devote resources and pursue the case are MUCH higher if there are specific allegations of threats being uttered, abusive behaviour, etc. It raises the case above a potential presumption that this was just a marriage that broke down - as well as making the public interest in targetting individuals for removal that represent threats to the safety of Canadians.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/protect-fraud/report-fraud.html

A lawyer will be better placed to comment, but taking into account @Kabigin 's comments above, I would note that even if the evidence re: threats is insufficient for police to pursue further (as a specific charge of either threats or extortion/coercion), I believe it can still be taken into account as part of totality of evidence regarding immigration fraud. So reporting to police and/or making this aspect clear to IRCC (eg with help of lawyer) has an impact.

One caution: I underline again that from government perspective, the 'immigration fraud' aspect is mostly not considered a 'fraud' against the individual but against the government (mostly under the misrepresentation parts of the statute). [I'm not using the term fraud here in a strict legal sense.] The one does not exclude the other, of course; but they also may have different standards of evidence and implications, that may make eg an eventual removal / exclusion from Canada possible or easier even if no criminal charges. But note, that is government of Canada pursuing what it believes to be the public interest and that may be very different from what the individual may want or expect.

Good luck. I expect most other aspects of the case are case-specific and depend on facts and circumstances that can't be fully known here and need to be discussed with legal counsel.

 

[canuck78]

Canuck78, I am in respectful agreement of your comments with some exception. The exception pertains to the single sentence I have quoted above.

Perhaps you are a lawyer also, and while your experience in Canadian criminal courts is maybe greater than my own, I am not sure I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment that the police will do little. The analysis is very much fact-driven.

Also, I not sure what, in your view, constitutes "concrete proof". Although it has been a long time since I have acted as counsel in a criminal trial (and you may in fact be at criminal law bar at present), one thing I have done is to have read just about every criminal law case from all the BC courts (Provincial Court, Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, plus Supreme Court of Canada cases with origins in BC) that has come put with written reasons since January 1982. So there are few, if any, threats and intimidation cases I have missed. I have some familiarity with the nature of the evidence presented in those cases.

From what I have observed, threats are seldom made in writing, via text message, or with a lot of witnesses standing close by. They are usually uttered in private. Very often between persons in intimate relationships. None of that acts as a bar to prosecution.

Lastly, I disagree with your assessment that there need be a "violent context" before with the mens rea or the actus reus of the offence is made out. That is not a gloss I have seen added to the gravamen of the cases with which I am familiar.

I do not propose to set out a criminal law course here, but a couple of cases will serve to illustrate my points.

First would be
R. v. G. (M.S.) Prov. Ct., Boblin Prov. J., 2020 BCPC 54, Surrey 228743-6KC, February 13, 2020 , 32pp.
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2020/2020bcpc54/2020bcpc54.html?autocompleteStr=2020 BCPC 54&autocompletePos=1

See the discussion of the charge of uttering threats commencing at paragraph #170. The accused was convicted on the oral testimony of the complainant. No screenshots, no secret tape recordings, no witnesses. She was judged on credibility and she prevailed.

Next, I cite
R. v. Rogers S.C., Bauman J., 2002 BCSC 386, Doc. Vancouver CC1425, March 14, 2002 , 12pp.

In brief compass, the facts and verdict in Rogers were these:

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON — Threats and intimidation — Uttering threats • Appellant accused charged with uttering threats to kill a dog — In convicting accused, trial judge accepting complainant’s evidence in its entirety on basis of her evidence, and her better demeanour, recall and presentation — Appeal court dismissing appeal, finding trial judge committing no error in accepting complainant’s evidence and finding charge proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Thanks to the Continuing Legal Education Society of B.C. for that copyrighted material. The full text of Rogers may be found here:
https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/SC/02/03/2002BCSC0386.htm

Finally, indulge me while I go further, and say I see even the prospect of an extortion charge in this case.

Section 346(1) of the Criminal Code criminalizes the use of coercion to overcome the free will of others for the purpose of extracting some gain: R. v. Violette, 2009 BCSC 1096 at para. 8.

Section 346(1) provides as follows:

346 (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.

Here's a relevant extortion case:

R. v. K. (R.K.) S.C., G.C. Weatherill J., 2019 BCSC 1822, New Westminster X080568, February 8, 2019 (oral), 31pp.

My concern in the case of the OP is not only, that on the brief facts provided, she is a victim of immigration fraud, but also the victim of a crime which in itself carries an undertone of violence against a vulnerable individual. The OP told us that her husband "gave me so many warnings, that if i do complaints about him my parents in India may suffer the consequences". It seems clear that there was a pattern here, over an extended period, to coerce the OP, to intimidate her, to keep her cowed. Only she and her husband know what was said, when, the context, the accompanying body language, tone of voice and so on. On the slim material presented, I have no way of assessing whether a prosecution would be worthwhile, but my nose tells me right now that there could be a prosecution of merit and, just like most here seem to agree that the immigration misconduct should not be ignored, I say, a fortiori, that the criminal misconduct aspect should not readily be brushed aside. If there be truth to all of this, is this the type of man we want coming here as a new Canadian and allowed to commence life in his new country showing such wanton disregard of our laws, the welfare and rights of his spouse?

I am not sure how many lawyers are on here and whether there are others who care to comment. I recognize we are straying someone from a strict immigration context here and perhaps I am encouraging an unnecessary diversion. I am aware of one poster who goes by the handle "legalfalcon" and who is, I believe, licensed to practise law in India, California and other jurisdictions. He may be a legal powerhouse, eminently more qualified to speak to the matter than I.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of some of the old hands here, I have written at length about my concern for the issues I see permeating the OP's posts, however tangential to a pure immigration focus they might seem. Perhaps a bit unseemly for a newbie like me to say so much. But I doubt that the OP's story is not one oft repeated and I find it difficult to overlook. I would hope the OP gets some advice as suggested. As well, this is Canada. There is no reason to fear the police. She can go forward to them, even by way of initial telephone contact, and relate what has occurred. They can be trusted to give her a fair audience and to make a realistic initial assessment about possible criminal sanction. In the end, the decision to prosecute will lie with Crown counsel, but the OP has not a thing to fear or to lose - and much to gain in my view - by telling her story.

The court system is very overwhelmed so in general cases without good chances of being won are generally not prosecuted. It is extremely unfortunate but the reality. There have been many cases where there have been proof of threats, stalking, previous domestic violence, etc. and there has been no prosecution and unfortunately people have died. Not discouraging people from reporting any threats or abuse but want OP to have realistic expectations of the justice system and the importance of having concrete proof if they want a chance of prosecution.

 

[canuck78]

Although Canada has a less corrupt justice system than many countries some newcomers have unrealistic expectations of the justice system and that any injustice will be prosecuted. There also isn't the same importance on family image and getting revenge if a family image has been tarnished. Would add that there is also such a stigma about divorce and a lot less money is exchanged by families when it comes to most Canadian marriages. When it comes to spousal sponsorship once a spouse lands it is up to the government to determine if the spouse can stay. The rules were changed so that spouses could not threaten the other spouse with losing their immigration status.

 

[abdulzeedo]

Slight twist to the story:
The OP has been blackmailing the partner with threats of deport and abusing him. He ran out of the situation to stay with his only acquaintance in the country.
Although it’s quite improbable it might be true. For the same reason, it’s going to be very hard to convince the IRCC that you are the one being abused and exploited.
Either way, you have to provide irrefutable proofs.