ROB_TO: I get you but are you getting me?
For everybody else: Have a go at it:
Importance of representation and Importance of dealing with mistakes is covered in this. You make a mistake you go own it.
CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION 2013 NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CONFERENCE : http://www.cba.org/CBA/cle/PDF/IMM13_paper_Swaisland.pdf
As far as case law is concerned:
have a go at this: DISCLAIMER I am not a lawyer but these are interesting cases and I actually learned a lot about misrepresentation from this:
Finally all of this would not have been possible if the lawyers did not exist
In cases of misrepresentation this has been used for removal orders: section 45: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. 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.
Paragraph 21 of Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Hernandez de Guzman 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[21] This provision of the Regulations must be read together with all of the other provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act), in order to take into account the context of the Act and the objective of the Act. According to subsection 11(1) of the Act, the foreign national wishing to enter Canada must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a visa or for any other document required, which are then issued following an examination. Further, section 28 of the Regulations describes the manner in which an application must be made, including not only that it must be made in writing, but also that it must be made when seeking to enter Canada. Therefore, there is an application not only when the original application is made in writing by a foreign national prior to entering Canada, but also at the time they seek to enter Canada.
Paragraph 9 of Sleman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[9] One’s intention, inadvertence, or motive for the failure to declare non-accompanying family members does not affect the interpretation or application of Section 117(9)(d) of the Regulations. That was made clear by the Federal Court of Appeal in Fuente[5] and Tauseef.[6] To be clear, it is trite that an Immigration officer is not obliged to enquire after the status of a foreign national upon landing. The onus is on the foreign national to declare his or her current status to the Immigration officer upon landing.
[10] Section 51 of the Regulations provides:
------------------------------------------------------
51. A foreign national who holds a permanent resident visa and is seeking to become a permanent resident must, at the time of their examination,
(a) inform the officer if
(i) the foreign national has become a spouse or common-law partner or has ceased to be a spouse, common-law partner or conjugal partner after the visa was issued, or
(ii) material facts relevant to the issuance of the visa have changed since the visa was issued or were not divulged when it was issued; and
(b) establish that they and their family members, whether accompanying or not, meet the requirements of the Act and these Regulations.
Paragraph 25 of Geda v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[25] The fact that when asked by the immigration officer at the port of entry both appellants willingly declared the fact of their marriages strongly suggests that they were both ignorant of the law and that they had no intention to withhold or mislead. Quite to the contrary, had their marriages been part of a large plot to obtain the entry of their husbands to Canada, the rational response to the question would have been to lie, thus avoiding the finding of inadmissibility. The appellants’ action in declaring their marital status and their overall credibility as witnesses persuades the panel that their conduct was innocent.
Paragraph 18 of Panford v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[18] The onus of disclosure is on the applicant who seeks to enter Canada.[7] Justice Russell of the Federal Court in Bodine acknowledged “that a foreign national seeking to enter Canada has a “duty of candor” which requires disclosure of material facts.”[8] Justice Russel provides the following analysis on what has to be disclosed:
[41] Although the Act, or section 40 specifically, does not require spontaneous disclosure of all information or evidence, there may be an obligation to disclose information or to produce relevant evidence in certain circumstances. Section 16(1) of the Act provides that “[a] person who makes an application must answer truthfully all questions put to them for the purpose of the examination and must answer truthfully all questions put to them for the purpose of the examination and must produce a visa and all relevant evidence and documents that the officer reasonably requires.” In Baro v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 1299 (CanLII), 2007 FC 1299 at para. 15, the Court recognized that a foreign national seeking to enter Canada has a “duty of candour” which requires disclosure of material facts. The Court went on to state at paragraphs 15-17:
15 …Even an innocent failure to provide material information can result in a finding of inadmissibility; for example, an applicant who fails to include all of her children in her application may be inadmissible: Bickin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 1495(F.C.T.D.) (QL). An exception arises where applicants can show that they honestly and reasonably believed that they were not withholding material information: Medel v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), reflex, [1990] 2 F.C. 345, [1990] F.C.J. No. 318 (F.C.A.) (QL).
[…]
17 Of course, applicants cannot be expected to anticipate the kinds of information that immigration officials might be interested in receiving. As the IAD noted here, "there is no onus on the person to disclose all information that might possibly be relevant". One must look at the surrounding circumstances to decide whether the applicant has failed to comply with s. 40(1)(a).
[42] It is clear that a duty of candour exists and that the surrounding circumstances are important for deciding what that duty entails in any particular instance. This case presents the question of the extent to which an applicant must disclose information when not expressly asked for that information by an examining officer. I do not find that section 40 of the Act requires that a person must spontaneously disclose any fact that could possibly be relevant. Instead, to determine whether the withholding of information constitutes a misrepresentation under the Act, it is necessary to consider the surrounding circumstances in each instance.[9]
