Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
This document is a judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) rejecting an applicant's appeal of a visa officer's refusal to issue a permanent resident visa to her spouse. The Federal Court judge identifies three issues: whether the IAD ignored the cultural context of the arranged marriage; whether the IAD erred in assessing the applicant's marriage; and whether the IAD failed to consider the totality of evidence. The judge finds that the IAD made several errors, including failing to properly consider the cultural context of the arranged marriage and placing undue focus on the spouse's immigration history. The judge allows the application and remits the case to a new panel of the IAD to reconsider according to the legal test
This document discusses whether breach of promise to marry should remain a cause of action in Malaysian courts. It begins by explaining that in England, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970 abolished this cause of action, but notes that Malaysian law is not bound by English legislation due to cut-off dates under Section 3 of the Civil Law Act. The document then provides arguments for why breach of promise to marry remains a valid cause of action in Malaysia, such as to uphold the integrity of promises made and award exemplary damages for distress caused by breaches. Case examples are discussed throughout to support keeping this as a cause of action.
This document is a court judgment regarding a writ petition filed by human rights advocate Nandita Haksar on behalf of 7 Myanmarese citizens who fled to India after the military coup in Myanmar in 2021. The petition seeks permission for the 7 individuals to travel to New Delhi to seek protection from the UNHCR. While the individuals entered India illegally without documents, the court recognizes that they meet the definition of "refugees" rather than "migrants" given the circumstances compelling them to flee Myanmar. The court rules that India is obligated under international law and its own constitution to respect the right of non-refoulement and protect the life and liberty of all individuals within its borders. Therefore, it
This document discusses misrepresentation provisions under Canadian immigration law. It provides context on key court decisions that have interpreted misrepresentation, including that intent is not required for a finding of misrepresentation. It examines provisions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that can lead to a finding of inadmissibility for misrepresentation by a permanent resident or foreign national. Specific issues are analyzed, such as what constitutes a material fact, direct vs indirect misrepresentation, and the requirement that the misrepresentation could induce an error in administering the Act. Examples are given of types of misrepresentations that courts have found to be material.
Civil Family Law - Promise to Marry (Betrothal)Azrin Hafiz
This document discusses the law around betrothal or a promise to marry in Malaysia. It defines betrothal as an agreement to marry between two parties. For a betrothal contract to be valid, there must be an offer and acceptance, consideration in the form of consent to marry, and the parties must have the capacity to marry. The document outlines the requirements for capacity including that the parties must be single, of age, not within a prohibited degree of relationship, and of religions that do not prevent marriage. It discusses exceptions and cases related to these requirements. The document also examines what constitutes a breach of contract if the betrothal is valid and potential defenses a defendant could raise. Finally, it lists the available remedies if
The court is considering initiating contempt proceedings against a Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) for violating a previous court order. The previous order directed that marriage officers should not send notices to applicants' residences when processing applications under the Special Marriages Act, as this could jeopardize marriage plans or endanger lives. However, the respondent SDM sent notices to the residence of an applicant, in violation of these directions. The court has issued a notice to the SDM to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for obstructing justice and disobeying the court.
This document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding the bail application of Preet Singh, who is accused of offenses under Sections 188, 269, 270, 153A IPC, and other sections related to violating COVID-19 restrictions and inciting communal disharmony. The defense counsel argued that Preet Singh did not make any offensive remarks against religions to incite violence. However, the prosecution argued that Preet Singh was a co-organizer of the event where objectionable slogans were raised and he made provocative statements in interviews. The court observed that it is not appropriate to determine if the statements constitute an offense under Section 153A IPC at this stage.
Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
This document is a judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) rejecting an applicant's appeal of a visa officer's refusal to issue a permanent resident visa to her spouse. The Federal Court judge identifies three issues: whether the IAD ignored the cultural context of the arranged marriage; whether the IAD erred in assessing the applicant's marriage; and whether the IAD failed to consider the totality of evidence. The judge finds that the IAD made several errors, including failing to properly consider the cultural context of the arranged marriage and placing undue focus on the spouse's immigration history. The judge allows the application and remits the case to a new panel of the IAD to reconsider according to the legal test
This document discusses whether breach of promise to marry should remain a cause of action in Malaysian courts. It begins by explaining that in England, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970 abolished this cause of action, but notes that Malaysian law is not bound by English legislation due to cut-off dates under Section 3 of the Civil Law Act. The document then provides arguments for why breach of promise to marry remains a valid cause of action in Malaysia, such as to uphold the integrity of promises made and award exemplary damages for distress caused by breaches. Case examples are discussed throughout to support keeping this as a cause of action.
This document is a court judgment regarding a writ petition filed by human rights advocate Nandita Haksar on behalf of 7 Myanmarese citizens who fled to India after the military coup in Myanmar in 2021. The petition seeks permission for the 7 individuals to travel to New Delhi to seek protection from the UNHCR. While the individuals entered India illegally without documents, the court recognizes that they meet the definition of "refugees" rather than "migrants" given the circumstances compelling them to flee Myanmar. The court rules that India is obligated under international law and its own constitution to respect the right of non-refoulement and protect the life and liberty of all individuals within its borders. Therefore, it
This document discusses misrepresentation provisions under Canadian immigration law. It provides context on key court decisions that have interpreted misrepresentation, including that intent is not required for a finding of misrepresentation. It examines provisions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that can lead to a finding of inadmissibility for misrepresentation by a permanent resident or foreign national. Specific issues are analyzed, such as what constitutes a material fact, direct vs indirect misrepresentation, and the requirement that the misrepresentation could induce an error in administering the Act. Examples are given of types of misrepresentations that courts have found to be material.
Civil Family Law - Promise to Marry (Betrothal)Azrin Hafiz
This document discusses the law around betrothal or a promise to marry in Malaysia. It defines betrothal as an agreement to marry between two parties. For a betrothal contract to be valid, there must be an offer and acceptance, consideration in the form of consent to marry, and the parties must have the capacity to marry. The document outlines the requirements for capacity including that the parties must be single, of age, not within a prohibited degree of relationship, and of religions that do not prevent marriage. It discusses exceptions and cases related to these requirements. The document also examines what constitutes a breach of contract if the betrothal is valid and potential defenses a defendant could raise. Finally, it lists the available remedies if
The court is considering initiating contempt proceedings against a Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) for violating a previous court order. The previous order directed that marriage officers should not send notices to applicants' residences when processing applications under the Special Marriages Act, as this could jeopardize marriage plans or endanger lives. However, the respondent SDM sent notices to the residence of an applicant, in violation of these directions. The court has issued a notice to the SDM to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for obstructing justice and disobeying the court.
This document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding the bail application of Preet Singh, who is accused of offenses under Sections 188, 269, 270, 153A IPC, and other sections related to violating COVID-19 restrictions and inciting communal disharmony. The defense counsel argued that Preet Singh did not make any offensive remarks against religions to incite violence. However, the prosecution argued that Preet Singh was a co-organizer of the event where objectionable slogans were raised and he made provocative statements in interviews. The court observed that it is not appropriate to determine if the statements constitute an offense under Section 153A IPC at this stage.
Godbless jonathan lema vs mussa hamis mkanga, agness gidion mollel and happyn...Mwambanga Michael
The Court of Appeal of Tanzania heard an appeal challenging the High Court's nullification of election results. The High Court found that the winning candidate had made uncivil remarks during campaigning. The Court of Appeal summarized the key issues. It found that the respondents who filed the election petition were not established to be registered voters based on the evidence provided. It also found that even if they were registered voters, they did not have standing to challenge the election results unless their own rights to vote were infringed. As such, the Court of Appeal set aside the High Court's judgment and declared the original winning candidate to be the legitimate member of parliament for the constituency.
This document is a court document pertaining to Special Case No. 03/2020 that arose from an investigated case by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) against 4 accused persons. The case involves charges of rioting, unlawful assembly, voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servants from discharging their duties, criminal conspiracy and terrorist acts under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The prosecution argues that materials in the case diary provide sufficient implication of the accused in provoking violence against police personnel. The defense counsel argues that the materials do not establish conspiracy or make out terrorist offenses. The court considers the arguments and examines the case materials to determine if charges should be framed against the accused persons.
This document is a court order from the High Court of Jharkhand regarding a habeas corpus petition filed by a husband (the petitioner) seeking the return of his wife (respondent No. 6) from her family. The court interviewed the wife separately and found she was under duress from her family to state she wanted to stay with them. The court then allowed the husband to take his wife home to live together freely and directed police to ensure their safety, as the wife feared harm from her family due to inter-caste marriage. The court also directed informing the Chief Minister about allegations against a Cabinet Minister made in the wife's statement.
The document is a motion by the State of Georgia opposing the defendant's special demurrer and plea in bar regarding charges of theft by conversion. The motion argues that the indictment is valid as it provides notice of the charges, lists the elements of the crime, and alleges the offense occurred within the statute of limitations. Specifically, the indictment claims the defendant misappropriated over $500 in public funds intended for a business center between 2007 and 2013, and the state brought charges in 2015 within the limitation period.
This document is a court order summarizing a bail application case. It discusses the facts of the case, including statements made by the prosecutrix and informant, and contradictory details in the statements. It notes that the prosecutrix and applicant had a prior consensual relationship and material contradictions exist in her statements. While the prosecution opposed bail, the court ultimately granted bail to the applicant, noting he has no prior criminal record and has been jailed since September 2020. Bail was granted with conditions including not contacting the prosecutrix, cooperating with trial, and not engaging in further criminal acts.
The document provides an overview of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. Some key points:
- The Act governs the admissibility of evidence in Indian courts and was passed during British rule based on recommendations to standardize evidence rules.
- It divides evidence into oral, documentary, and material forms and covers the relevance of evidence in criminal trials. Relevant evidence must be related to the facts in issue in a case.
- The Act has been amended over time but its original framework remains. It establishes rules for evaluating different types of evidence and determining what evidence is admissible in court.
1. The court document discusses an application for regular bail filed by Preet Singh, who is accused of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and Epidemic Diseases Act for organizing an event at Jantar Mantar in Delhi without permission.
2. The prosecution argues that Preet Singh made inflammatory speeches and slogans against a particular religion, while the defense claims he is falsely implicated and did not engage in unlawful speech or activities.
3. The court must now determine whether to grant bail to Preet Singh based on the arguments made by the prosecution and defense regarding the evidence in the case and potential risks if he is released.
The Court of Appeal decision on the nationalizations of Belize Telemedia Limi...Adele Ramos
Civil Appeal Nos. 18 19 and 21 of 2012 the Attorney General v The British Caribbean Bank Limited; Dean Boyce and Fortis Energy International Belize Inc vs The Attorney General
The document is a judgment from the Gauhati High Court regarding an appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency against a lower court order granting bail to Akhil Gogoi. Some key details:
- NIA's charges against Gogoi include leading a violent protest that turned into an economic blockade and pelted stones at police, with one officer sustaining grievous injuries.
- The lower court had granted Gogoi bail after the charge sheet was submitted. NIA argued this was an error as evidence showed Gogoi's role in conspiring violence and targeting a community.
- The High Court heard arguments on whether Gogoi's actions met the definition of "terrorist act" under
This document summarizes a court case appeal regarding the rejection of a bail application.
The appellant, Harshvardhan Yadav, has appealed the rejection of his bail by the lower court in a rape case filed against him by the informant, a police constable. The appellant argues the sexual act was consensual while the prosecution claims it was rape.
The court discusses past judgments on similar cases to determine if the sexual act was consensual or rape. Specifically, it analyzes if there was consent given under misconception of fact. The court ultimately sides with the prosecution, finding the delay in filing the FIR reasonable and that rape was committed as described by the informant.
The document discusses a bail application hearing for Mandeep Puniya, a freelance journalist arrested for offenses including obstructing a public servant during a protest at Singhu Border in Delhi. While the defense argued Puniya was wrongly arrested and should be granted bail, the prosecution opposed bail, arguing he may instigate further protests. The judge ultimately granted bail to Puniya with conditions, noting he is a journalist and keeping him in custody would serve no purpose.
This document provides details of 3 bail applications filed by individuals accused in a case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging offenses related to espionage against scientists at ISRO in 1994. The applications were filed by the 11th accused, the 1st and 2nd accused, and the 7th accused. The court heard arguments from lawyers representing the accused. The document discusses the background of the espionage case against ISRO scientists in 1994 and its investigation and closure. It also discusses the report submitted in 2021 by a committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge regarding the false implication of individuals in the case.
This document is a court judgment summarizing a criminal appeal case. The key details are:
- The appellant, Libnus Kujur, was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and other charges for an incident involving a 5-year-old girl.
- The prosecution claimed the appellant entered the girl's home when she was alone, held her hands and tried to take her to a bedroom with his zipper open.
- However, the high court found these acts did not meet the legal definition of aggravated sexual assault or involve direct physical contact.
- At most, the appellant could be found guilty of the minor offenses of outraging a woman's modesty and trespassing. Considering the nature of the
This order grants the defendant's motion to revoke the magistrate judge's detention order and orders the defendant's pretrial release. The court conducted an independent review and found that there are conditions that can be imposed to address the risk of flight and safety concerns. The charges involve communicating national defense information and retaining classified documents. The government argued the defendant posed a flight risk and danger due to the sensitive information he had access to, while the defendant argued pretrial detention was not authorized based solely on danger to the community. The court considered the relevant factors and found pretrial release was appropriate with conditions.
Nota tort fitnah dan pembelaan in Malay. Defamation and defense.
Please do not reupload or misuse for profit. For reading purpose only. Credits belong to the original creator of the slides.
The Immigration Appeal Division allowed the appeal of Harjit Kaur Uppal regarding the refusal of a permanent resident visa application made by her spouse, Avtar Singh Gill. An immigration officer had refused the application, finding the marriage was not genuine and was entered into primarily for immigration purposes. However, the Minister recommended allowing the appeal after reviewing evidence and hearing testimony. The panel agreed, finding the marriage genuine based on the couple's ongoing relationship and communications, as well as the birth of their child. The refusal was set aside and the application ordered to be further processed.
1. The appellant, Iqbal Ahmed Kabir Ahmed, who was the original accused No. 3, filed an application for bail which was rejected by the special judge. He has filed this appeal against the rejection.
2. The key evidence against the appellant includes the recovery of an oath from his house pursuant to disclosure by an co-accused, and pointing out an electric switchboard in his house where an IED was allegedly soldered. Statements of witnesses also indicate the appellant participated in meetings where actions regarding perceived threats to Islam were discussed.
3. The prosecution argues the material is sufficient to show a prima facie case against the appellant and reasonable grounds exist to believe the accusations, thereby invoking the
The document summarizes a court case in India. It discusses the charges filed against three applicants - a husband (Applicant 1) and his brother and sister-in-law (Applicants 2 and 3). The complainant is the wife of Applicant 1. She alleged harassment and cruelty by the applicants after marriage, including demands for dowry. The court upheld the charge of cruelty/dowry demand against all three applicants under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. However, it removed the charges of rape and unnatural sex against the husband, citing exceptions for marital rape in Indian law. It said sexual acts between a husband and wife do not constitute rape or unnatural sex offenses. The charge of unnatural
Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
Gahir Law is one of the top law firms in Mississauga, Ontario, Brampton, Toronto, Hamilton in Canada. In our law office, get assistance from our lawyer to help you in licence appeal tribunal law, administrative law, professional regulation disciplinary law, commercial land development mediator arbitrator law, corporate law, Immigration related cases. For more details visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
Lawyers in Brampton Ontario | Business Lawyers in Brampton | Top Lawyers in C...Gahir & Associate Lawyers
Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
Godbless jonathan lema vs mussa hamis mkanga, agness gidion mollel and happyn...Mwambanga Michael
The Court of Appeal of Tanzania heard an appeal challenging the High Court's nullification of election results. The High Court found that the winning candidate had made uncivil remarks during campaigning. The Court of Appeal summarized the key issues. It found that the respondents who filed the election petition were not established to be registered voters based on the evidence provided. It also found that even if they were registered voters, they did not have standing to challenge the election results unless their own rights to vote were infringed. As such, the Court of Appeal set aside the High Court's judgment and declared the original winning candidate to be the legitimate member of parliament for the constituency.
This document is a court document pertaining to Special Case No. 03/2020 that arose from an investigated case by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) against 4 accused persons. The case involves charges of rioting, unlawful assembly, voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servants from discharging their duties, criminal conspiracy and terrorist acts under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The prosecution argues that materials in the case diary provide sufficient implication of the accused in provoking violence against police personnel. The defense counsel argues that the materials do not establish conspiracy or make out terrorist offenses. The court considers the arguments and examines the case materials to determine if charges should be framed against the accused persons.
This document is a court order from the High Court of Jharkhand regarding a habeas corpus petition filed by a husband (the petitioner) seeking the return of his wife (respondent No. 6) from her family. The court interviewed the wife separately and found she was under duress from her family to state she wanted to stay with them. The court then allowed the husband to take his wife home to live together freely and directed police to ensure their safety, as the wife feared harm from her family due to inter-caste marriage. The court also directed informing the Chief Minister about allegations against a Cabinet Minister made in the wife's statement.
The document is a motion by the State of Georgia opposing the defendant's special demurrer and plea in bar regarding charges of theft by conversion. The motion argues that the indictment is valid as it provides notice of the charges, lists the elements of the crime, and alleges the offense occurred within the statute of limitations. Specifically, the indictment claims the defendant misappropriated over $500 in public funds intended for a business center between 2007 and 2013, and the state brought charges in 2015 within the limitation period.
This document is a court order summarizing a bail application case. It discusses the facts of the case, including statements made by the prosecutrix and informant, and contradictory details in the statements. It notes that the prosecutrix and applicant had a prior consensual relationship and material contradictions exist in her statements. While the prosecution opposed bail, the court ultimately granted bail to the applicant, noting he has no prior criminal record and has been jailed since September 2020. Bail was granted with conditions including not contacting the prosecutrix, cooperating with trial, and not engaging in further criminal acts.
The document provides an overview of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. Some key points:
- The Act governs the admissibility of evidence in Indian courts and was passed during British rule based on recommendations to standardize evidence rules.
- It divides evidence into oral, documentary, and material forms and covers the relevance of evidence in criminal trials. Relevant evidence must be related to the facts in issue in a case.
- The Act has been amended over time but its original framework remains. It establishes rules for evaluating different types of evidence and determining what evidence is admissible in court.
1. The court document discusses an application for regular bail filed by Preet Singh, who is accused of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and Epidemic Diseases Act for organizing an event at Jantar Mantar in Delhi without permission.
2. The prosecution argues that Preet Singh made inflammatory speeches and slogans against a particular religion, while the defense claims he is falsely implicated and did not engage in unlawful speech or activities.
3. The court must now determine whether to grant bail to Preet Singh based on the arguments made by the prosecution and defense regarding the evidence in the case and potential risks if he is released.
The Court of Appeal decision on the nationalizations of Belize Telemedia Limi...Adele Ramos
Civil Appeal Nos. 18 19 and 21 of 2012 the Attorney General v The British Caribbean Bank Limited; Dean Boyce and Fortis Energy International Belize Inc vs The Attorney General
The document is a judgment from the Gauhati High Court regarding an appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency against a lower court order granting bail to Akhil Gogoi. Some key details:
- NIA's charges against Gogoi include leading a violent protest that turned into an economic blockade and pelted stones at police, with one officer sustaining grievous injuries.
- The lower court had granted Gogoi bail after the charge sheet was submitted. NIA argued this was an error as evidence showed Gogoi's role in conspiring violence and targeting a community.
- The High Court heard arguments on whether Gogoi's actions met the definition of "terrorist act" under
This document summarizes a court case appeal regarding the rejection of a bail application.
The appellant, Harshvardhan Yadav, has appealed the rejection of his bail by the lower court in a rape case filed against him by the informant, a police constable. The appellant argues the sexual act was consensual while the prosecution claims it was rape.
The court discusses past judgments on similar cases to determine if the sexual act was consensual or rape. Specifically, it analyzes if there was consent given under misconception of fact. The court ultimately sides with the prosecution, finding the delay in filing the FIR reasonable and that rape was committed as described by the informant.
The document discusses a bail application hearing for Mandeep Puniya, a freelance journalist arrested for offenses including obstructing a public servant during a protest at Singhu Border in Delhi. While the defense argued Puniya was wrongly arrested and should be granted bail, the prosecution opposed bail, arguing he may instigate further protests. The judge ultimately granted bail to Puniya with conditions, noting he is a journalist and keeping him in custody would serve no purpose.
This document provides details of 3 bail applications filed by individuals accused in a case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging offenses related to espionage against scientists at ISRO in 1994. The applications were filed by the 11th accused, the 1st and 2nd accused, and the 7th accused. The court heard arguments from lawyers representing the accused. The document discusses the background of the espionage case against ISRO scientists in 1994 and its investigation and closure. It also discusses the report submitted in 2021 by a committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge regarding the false implication of individuals in the case.
This document is a court judgment summarizing a criminal appeal case. The key details are:
- The appellant, Libnus Kujur, was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and other charges for an incident involving a 5-year-old girl.
- The prosecution claimed the appellant entered the girl's home when she was alone, held her hands and tried to take her to a bedroom with his zipper open.
- However, the high court found these acts did not meet the legal definition of aggravated sexual assault or involve direct physical contact.
- At most, the appellant could be found guilty of the minor offenses of outraging a woman's modesty and trespassing. Considering the nature of the
This order grants the defendant's motion to revoke the magistrate judge's detention order and orders the defendant's pretrial release. The court conducted an independent review and found that there are conditions that can be imposed to address the risk of flight and safety concerns. The charges involve communicating national defense information and retaining classified documents. The government argued the defendant posed a flight risk and danger due to the sensitive information he had access to, while the defendant argued pretrial detention was not authorized based solely on danger to the community. The court considered the relevant factors and found pretrial release was appropriate with conditions.
Nota tort fitnah dan pembelaan in Malay. Defamation and defense.
Please do not reupload or misuse for profit. For reading purpose only. Credits belong to the original creator of the slides.
The Immigration Appeal Division allowed the appeal of Harjit Kaur Uppal regarding the refusal of a permanent resident visa application made by her spouse, Avtar Singh Gill. An immigration officer had refused the application, finding the marriage was not genuine and was entered into primarily for immigration purposes. However, the Minister recommended allowing the appeal after reviewing evidence and hearing testimony. The panel agreed, finding the marriage genuine based on the couple's ongoing relationship and communications, as well as the birth of their child. The refusal was set aside and the application ordered to be further processed.
1. The appellant, Iqbal Ahmed Kabir Ahmed, who was the original accused No. 3, filed an application for bail which was rejected by the special judge. He has filed this appeal against the rejection.
2. The key evidence against the appellant includes the recovery of an oath from his house pursuant to disclosure by an co-accused, and pointing out an electric switchboard in his house where an IED was allegedly soldered. Statements of witnesses also indicate the appellant participated in meetings where actions regarding perceived threats to Islam were discussed.
3. The prosecution argues the material is sufficient to show a prima facie case against the appellant and reasonable grounds exist to believe the accusations, thereby invoking the
The document summarizes a court case in India. It discusses the charges filed against three applicants - a husband (Applicant 1) and his brother and sister-in-law (Applicants 2 and 3). The complainant is the wife of Applicant 1. She alleged harassment and cruelty by the applicants after marriage, including demands for dowry. The court upheld the charge of cruelty/dowry demand against all three applicants under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. However, it removed the charges of rape and unnatural sex against the husband, citing exceptions for marital rape in Indian law. It said sexual acts between a husband and wife do not constitute rape or unnatural sex offenses. The charge of unnatural
Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
Gahir Law is one of the top law firms in Mississauga, Ontario, Brampton, Toronto, Hamilton in Canada. In our law office, get assistance from our lawyer to help you in licence appeal tribunal law, administrative law, professional regulation disciplinary law, commercial land development mediator arbitrator law, corporate law, Immigration related cases. For more details visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
Lawyers in Brampton Ontario | Business Lawyers in Brampton | Top Lawyers in C...Gahir & Associate Lawyers
Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
Gahir Law believe what sets us apart from other law firms is that we always ensure our advice is practical yet innovative and that the work is performed on-time and within budget. Our ultimate goal is your satisfaction. You can put trust on us to guide and assist you in the time of need. For more information visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
Gahir & Associates specializes in all aspects of creating, growing, and protecting incorporated businesses. We help you develop an internal structure that is in compliance with all corporate law statutes. Before you make any significant changes or investments, reach out to Gahir & Associates’s finest corporate lawyers. For more details visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
The document discusses an application for bail filed by Sharjeel Imam. It summarizes the key details of the case, including the charges against Imam related to speeches he delivered on December 13th and 15th, 2019 regarding protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. While the prosecution argues Imam's speeches incited violence, the judge found the evidence linking Imam's speeches to subsequent acts of violence by co-accused to be scanty and inconclusive. The judge granted Imam bail for offenses related to inciting violence but will further examine charges of sedition against Imam.
The document discusses a bail application hearing for Sharjeel Imam. It summarizes the key details of the case, including the charges against Imam related to speeches he delivered on December 13th and 15th, 2019 regarding protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. It notes that while the prosecution argues Imam's speeches incited violence, the defense argues there is no evidence linking Imam's words to any criminal acts. In its ruling, the court finds the evidence against Imam for abetting offenses to be insufficient and scanty.
1) The petitioner had previously been declared not a foreigner by the Foreigners' Tribunal in an earlier case in 2013.
2) A subsequent case proceeded against the petitioner in 2017 and declared her a foreigner.
3) On reviewing both cases, the court found the only differences were minor discrepancies in names, but that it was clear both cases referred to the same person.
4) As the petitioner had already been declared not a foreigner in the earlier 2013 case, the subsequent 2017 case violated the principle of res judicata. The court therefore allowed the petition and declared the petitioner an Indian citizen.
This document is a court judgment from the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka regarding an application seeking revision of a High Court order concerning the return of two children to Australia under the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Act. The court addressed several preliminary objections raised by the father (1st respondent) regarding the mother's (petitioner) locus standi to file the revision application, whether she was guilty of laches, and other issues. The court overruled the objections, finding that the mother had a right to file as an aggrieved party, the two month delay was not unreasonable, and that there is no right to appeal such orders under the relevant Act.
The applicant, Dr. Satish, who is a qualified medical practitioner with no prior criminal record, applied for bail in a case where he has been charged with offenses related to a shortage of medical oxygen at a hospital where he was head of the anesthesia department. The court analyzed documents and statements from the investigation and found that the applicant was not involved in procuring, billing or payments for the medical oxygen supplies. Considering this and that the applicant has already spent 7 months in custody, the court granted bail to the applicant with conditions to ensure his presence at trial.
Recent Developments in Rhode Island Law 2014 - State Courts and Civil ProcedureNicole Benjamin
This document summarizes recent developments in Rhode Island law from 2014, focusing on state courts and civil procedure. Key points include: the launch of electronic filing in civil cases beginning in November 2014; changes to the Providence County civil non-dispositive motion calendar eliminating the call of the calendar; and several issues of first impression addressed by the Rhode Island Supreme Court during the 2013-2014 term related to admiralty law, appellate practice, attorneys, class actions, commercial law, and medical malpractice.
Opinion granting plaintiffs' msj 17-02-10 reliance is required spending on ...Seth Row
US District Court, District of Oregon, order holding that insurer did not "rely" on insured's alleged misrepresentation by incurring expenses to investigate insured's loss
This document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding violence that took place in Delhi in February 2020. The petitioner, Irshad Ali, seeks bail in an FIR related to the violence. The prosecution claims there is evidence from CCTV footage and witness statements identifying the petitioner at the scene of the crime attacking police with a stick. The petitioner's counsel argues there is no substantive evidence against the petitioner and his arrest 9 months later was unjustified. The court heard arguments from both sides and reviewed video evidence before considering whether to grant bail to the petitioner.
Issues Whether Dietrich is liable for the drugs trafficking.pdfsdfghj21
Dietrich is charged with drug trafficking under the Customs Act. He claims the drugs were not his and requests legal representation since he cannot afford it, but his requests are denied. At his trial, Dietrich is convicted and sentenced to 7 years in prison. He appeals, arguing he was entitled to legal representation under common law tradition and international law. The High Court acquits Dietrich of one charge but upholds his conviction on other charges. However, two judges dissent, stating the courts have a duty to ensure legal representation for serious charges.
This document discusses a text message exchange between the respondent and petitioner regarding picking up their children from an undisclosed event. It also references exhibits of email exchanges between the respondent's attorney and petitioner's attorney regarding requests for respondent's employee plan information and other disclosures. The document indicates the respondent is combative and unreasonable in communications with the petitioner.
Dietrich was charged with drug trafficking offenses under the Customs Act 1901. He claimed he could not afford legal representation and requested a stay in proceedings to obtain counsel, but this was denied. On appeal, the High Court considered whether Dietrich had a right to legal representation given he faced serious charges but could not afford a lawyer. The Court acquitted Dietrich of one charge but upheld his conviction on other charges, finding the trial court did not have the power to appoint counsel but could have stayed proceedings to allow Dietrich to obtain representation.
Similar to Lawyers in Brampton Ontario | Business Lawyers in Brampton (20)
Indonesian Manpower Regulation on Severance Pay for Retiring Private Sector E...AHRP Law Firm
Law Number 13 of 2003 on Manpower has been partially revoked and amended several times, with the latest amendment made through Law Number 6 of 2023. Attention is drawn to a specific part of the Manpower Law concerning severance pay. This aspect is undoubtedly one of the most crucial parts regulated by the Manpower Law. It is essential for both employers and employees to abide by the law, fulfill their obligations, and retain their rights regarding this matter.
Reviewing contracts swiftly and efficiently is crucial for any organization. It ensures compliance, reduces risks, and keeps business operations running smoothly.
A Critical Study of ICC Prosecutor's Move on GAZA WarNilendra Kumar
ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan's proposal to its judges seeking permission to prosecute Israeli leaders and Hamas commanders for crimes against the law of war has serious ramifications and calls deep scrutiny.
Lawyers in Brampton Ontario | Business Lawyers in Brampton
1. Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada
Immigration Appeal Division
Commission de l’immigration
et du statut de réfugié du Canada
Section d’appel de l’immigration
IAD File No. / No
de dossier de la SAI: TB7-10237
Client ID No. / No
ID client: 6363-6862
Reasons and Decision Motifs et décision
REMOVAL ORDER
Appellant(s) GURVINDER SINGH BRAR Appelant(e)(s)
and et
The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Respondent Le ministre de la Sécurité publique et de la Protection civile Intimé(e)
Date(s) of Hearing September 11, 2018 Date(s) de l’audience
Place of Hearing Toronto, Ontario Lieu de l’audience
Date of Decision October 31, 2018 Date de la décision
Panel J. Wagner Tribunal
Counsel for the
Appellant(s) Harinder S. Gahir
Conseil(s) de l’appelant(e) /
des appelant(e)(s
Barrister and Solicitor
Designated
Representative(s)
N/A
Représentant(e)(s)
désigné(e)(s)
Counsel for the Minister Adib Abbasi Conseil du ministre
2018
CanLII
131181
(CA
IRB)
2. IAD File No. / N
o
de dossier de la SAI: TB7-10237
Client ID No. / N
o
ID client: 6363-6862
REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION
[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the appeal made by Gurwinder Singh BRAR,
(the appellant), a 29-year-old male citizen of India. The appellant, a Canadian permanent resident
(PR) since March 8, 2014, is appealing an exclusion order made against him by the Immigration
Division (ID) on May 16, 2017.1
[2] The exclusion order was issued on the basis that the appellant is inadmissible to Canada
because of misrepresentation pursuant to paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act (the Act).
[3] The appellant testified in person at his appeal hearing in English. The appellant had not
requested an interpreter and it was confirmed at the outset of the hearing that none was required.
[4] Three witnesses were identified by the appellant in his counsel’s August 2018
correspondence and summonses were issued to call the three to appear as witnesses, including
the appellant’s girlfriend, Husandeep DHILLON, and her brother. Only one witness was called
by the appellant at the hearing, Sandalpreet BAL, a friend of the appellant and his girlfriend.
Ms. BAL provided her testimony in person at the hearing in English.
ISSUE
[5] The appellant is challenging the legal validity of the exclusion order and is alternatively
seeking special relief on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. The respondent takes
the position that the appeal should be dismissed on both grounds.
BACKGROUND
[6] The following is a summary of the appellant’s personal and immigration history, to assist
in setting out the background of this appeal.
1
Exhibit R-1, p. 83.
2018
CanLII
131181
(CA
IRB)
3. IAD File No. / N
o
de dossier de la SAI: TB7-10237
Client ID No. / N
o
ID client: 6363-6862
2
[7] The appellant entered Canada as a student on August 26, 2010 and was subsequently
issued authorization to work in Canada. In approximately July 2013, the appellant applied for
PR status in Canada through the Canada Experience Class.2
The appellant was successful in his
application and received his Canadian PR status on March 28, 2014.3
[8] The appellant had declared his marital status as single at the time of application and did
not declare any change to his marital status at the time of landing. A September 17, 2013 email
from a centralized intake officer regarding the PR application noted, inter alia, that the appellant
should inform the visa office of any change, including specific mention of any common-law
relationship.4
[9] In October 2014, within seven months of landing, the appellant filed a sponsorship
application for Husandeep DHILLON, who was identified as his common-law partner.
[10] In the application, it was declared that the couple had been cohabiting in a common-law
relationship since January 29, 2013.5
As this timeline would have the applicant and appellant
living in a common-law relationship for at least one year at the time of his landing in March
2014, the appellant would have been required to declare her as his common-law partner at the
time of landing. His failure to do so led to the refusal of the sponsorship application in January
2015 under 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the Regulations).6
[11] The file was then transferred for an investigation into possible misrepresentation for the
appellant’s failure to declare Ms. DHILLON as a dependent at the time of his landing.7
The
appellant was advised of the investigation by way of a letter dated December 2, 2015, and asked
to provide a response to the allegations that he had been in a common-law relationship since
January 29, 2013 and had not declared this relationship at the time of landing.8
2
Exhibit R-1, p. 33.
3
Exhibit R-1, p. 16.
4
Exhibit R-1, pp. 73-74.
5
Exhibit R-1, p. 24
6
Exhibit R-1, pp. 70-71.
7
Exhibit R-1, p. 72.
8
Exhibit R-1, pp. 78-79.
2018
CanLII
131181
(CA
IRB)
4. IAD File No. / N
o
de dossier de la SAI: TB7-10237
Client ID No. / N
o
ID client: 6363-6862
3
[12] The appellant provided a written response through his then-counsel, which included an
affidavit from the appellant.9
[13] On January 6, 2016, the appellant was written up as being inadmissible for
misrepresentation in a report under subsection 44(1) of the Act (44 report). The 44 report was
based on the allegation that the appellant was in a common-law relationship with Ms. DHILLON
from January 29, 2013 and did not declare the relationship to the immigration officer at the time
of landing.10
The appellant was subsequently referred to an admissibility hearing.11
[14] The admissibility hearing at the Immigration Division (ID) took place on May 16, 2017,
with the decision rendered and an exclusion order issued against the appellant the same day.12
The appellant was self-represented at the ID hearing, where he conceded the allegations against
him.
ANALYSIS
Legal validity of the ID’s decision
[15] In this appeal the appellant is challenging the legal validity of the exclusion order issued
against him by the ID and is now denying that he has ever been in a common-law relationship
with Ms. DHILLON.
[16] The first issue to be decided is whether the appellant is inadmissible to Canada on the
grounds of misrepresentation as described in section 40(1)(a) of the Act. The onus is on the
appellant to establish on a balance of probabilities that he is not.
[17] The allegations of misrepresentation relate to the appellant’s relationship with Ms.
DHILLON, whose application for permanent residence he sponsored as a common-law partner.
[18] The term “common-law partner” is defined in subsection 1(1) of the Regulations as
follows:
9
Exhibit R-1, pp. 53-69.
10
Exhibit R-1, pp. 14-15.
11
Exhibit R-1, p. 21.
12
Exhibit R-1, pp. 1-10.
2018
CanLII
131181
(CA
IRB)
5. IAD File No. / N
o
de dossier de la SAI: TB7-10237
Client ID No. / N
o
ID client: 6363-6862
4
common-law partner means, in relation to a person, an individual who is cohabiting with
the person in a conjugal relationship, having so cohabited for a period of at least one year.
[19] While the term conjugal relationship is not defined in the Act or Regulations, we have
case law that helps us in assessing this, providing the following non-exhaustive list of factors
used to identify a conjugal relationship: shared shelter; sexual and personal behaviour; services;
social activities; economic support; children; and the societal perception of the couple.13
The
applicability of these factors varies according to the circumstances of each case as does the
weight assigned to them.
[20] The case law related to conjugal partnership in the immigration context has since
established that courts must use a flexible approach to determine whether a conjugal relationship
exists.14
Despite the flexible approach, “the alleged conjugal relationship must have a sufficient
number of features of a marriage to show that it is more than just a means of entering Canada as a
member of the family class.”15
[21] It has also been recognized that a conjugal relationship is essentially marriage-like; “one
of some permanence, where individuals are interdependent - financially, socially, emotionally,
and physically - where they share household and related responsibilities, and where they have
made a serious commitment to one another.”16
[22] For the appellant to have been required to declare his relationship with Ms. DHILLON at
the time of landing on March 28, 2014, it must be determined that the applicant and appellant
were in a common-law relationship for at least one year at that time, as required by the definition
at subsection 1(1) of the Regulations. That is, the couple would need to have been cohabiting in
a conjugal relationship since at least March 28, 2013.
[23] To do this, it is helpful to look at the genesis and development of the relationship
between the appellant and Ms. DHILLON.
13
M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3.
14
Leroux v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 403, Mbollo v. Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration), 2009 FC 1267.
15
Mbollo at para. 27 citing Leroux at para. 23.
16
Siev v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 736 at para. 15 citing OP 2 - Processing
Members of the Family Class, section 2.
2018
CanLII
131181
(CA
IRB)
6. IAD File No. / N
o
de dossier de la SAI: TB7-10237
Client ID No. / N
o
ID client: 6363-6862
5
[24] The appellant and Ms. DHILLON reportedly became familiar with each other online as
Facebook friends and met in person in December 2012 when the appellant travelled to
Vancouver and stayed with Ms. DHILLON, who had recently relocated to Vancouver, Canada to
pursue her education. During the appellant’s two-week visit in Vancouver, he reportedly
proposed marriage to Ms. DHILLON and she agreed to his proposal.
[25] Ms. DHILLON subsequently relocated to Toronto on or around January 29, 2013, living
at the same address as the appellant. In October 2013 the appellant and Ms. DHILLON relocated,
again to a shared address, to accommodate her brother’s arrival from India to pursue his own
studies in Canada.
[26] In the application forms and in the supporting documents listing the addresses for the
couple, no unit or other distinction (for example, basement or second floor) were provided for
their addresses. While the application to sponsor the Ms. DHILLON is included in the Record
from the ID,17
the complete details of the relationship history are not included. The Record does
however contain a sworn affidavit from the appellant in which he addresses the concerns of the
immigration officer around the possible misrepresentation from failing to declare his relationship
with Ms. DHILLON, and provide some details and background to the relationship.18
[27] In the December 2015 affidavit the appellant indicates that he proposed to Ms.
DHILLON to be his wife on December 20, 2012 and she accepted. He further states that on
January 29, 2013, Ms. DHILLON moved to Toronto to be with him and since that date they have
been residing together in a committed and genuine relationship.
[28] In his response to the initial investigation into the allegations against him, the appellant
did not deny being in a common-law relationship with Ms. DHILLON, but rather explained that
being unfamiliar with the concept of a common-law relationship, he failed to understand that he
was in one and that such a relationship had to be declared. This was the approach the appellant
took at the ID as well.
17
Exhibit R-1, pp. 24-32.
18
Exhibit R-1, pp. 53-54.
2018
CanLII
131181
(CA
IRB)
7. IAD File No. / N
o
de dossier de la SAI: TB7-10237
Client ID No. / N
o
ID client: 6363-6862
6
[29] At his appeal hearing, the appellant changed course in his response to the allegations and
now states that he had only referred to his relationship with Ms. DHILLON as common-law on
the basis that they shared an address since January 2013 and that he was never asked for details
about the nature of their relationship. The appellant now states that he and Ms. DHILLON were
not in fact living together but were only friends who were roommates. He testified that at their
first shared address he had lived in the basement with his cousin while Ms. DHILLON lived
upstairs in a separate room, and that at the second shared address they shared an apartment, but
the appellant shared a bedroom with his cousin while Ms. DHILLON shared a bedroom with her
brother.
[30] The appellant also now states that the relationship was not exclusive or marriage-like and
that while the couple talked of maybe getting married down the road if things worked out, there
was no definite plan for marriage. He further states that when he went into the immigration
lawyer’s office with Ms. DHILLON in July 2014 to discuss sponsorship options, which led to his
filing a common-law partner sponsorship application for Ms. DHILLON, it was not necessarily
for sponsoring her but to get information on the process should he want to sponsor a wife
someday.
[31] The appellant did not explain clearly why he conceded in his response to the investigation
in December 2015 and at ID hearing in May 2016 that it was a common-law relationship beyond
his not fully understanding what common-law meant at that time. He indicated that had he
understood that because they lived at the same address, this sufficed to be considered common-
law and that he was not asked other detailed questions about the nature of the relationship. I do
not find it credible that after being flagged for investigation the appellant would continue to
declare the relationship as common-law rather than seek out further clarification on what
common-law meant and whether in fact his relationship with Ms. DHILLON met this test.
[32] It could reasonably have been argued, as his previous counsel submitted,19
that the
appellant had innocently failed to declare the relationship with Ms. DHILLON as he was not
aware that his relationship was a common-law relationship until that counsel made him aware of
19
Exhibit R-1, pp. 56-59.
2018
CanLII
131181
(CA
IRB)
8. IAD File No. / N
o
de dossier de la SAI: TB7-10237
Client ID No. / N
o
ID client: 6363-6862
7
this months after landing. While this would still be a misrepresentation under 40(1)(a) of the
Act, it would be on the lower end of the seriousness spectrum.
[33] It could also have been argued that the couple were in a genuine, ongoing, committed
relationship developing over time, but that they had not cohabited in a conjugal relationship for
at least a year at the time of landing.20
In such a case, Ms. DHILLON would not meet the
definition at subsection 1(1) of the Regulations at the time of landing and so the appellant would
not have been required to declare her or the relationship. As such, there would be no
misrepresentation.
[34] The appellant did not put forth either of the above arguments at the appeal hearing but
rather testified that he and Ms. DHILLON had never been in a common-law relationship. The
appellant’s testimony raised concerns of another, more serious, misrepresentation, that being the
filing of a common-law sponsorship application for someone with whom he had no such
relationship. The appellant testified that his relationship with Ms. DHILLON was little more than
friends and roommates who had sexual relations and dated prior to the arrival of Ms.
DHILLON’s brother in Canada, but had not lived together as a couple. The appellant testified
that even while Ms. DHILLON was his girlfriend, it was not an exclusive relationship as he had
relations with other girls during this time. He also testified that he and Ms. DHILLON spent little
to no time together as a couple and did not have a shared life together.
[35] The friend who was called as a witness indicated that during her friendship with Ms.
DHILLON going back to 2013, she never knew her to have a boyfriend. She further stated that
she knew the appellant and Ms. DHILLON as roommates sharing an apartment with separate
bedrooms and that they did not even cook shared meals given Ms. DHILLON’s strict
vegetarianism, which raises questions about the compatibility of the pair as life partners. This
also supports that the appellant and Ms. DHILLON did not present themselves to society as a
couple and were not perceived as such.
[36] Using the initial version of the relationship, where the appellant proposed within days of
their meeting in person in December 2012 and Ms. DHILLON moved to Toronto in January
20
Exhibit R-1, pp. 59-62.
2018
CanLII
131181
(CA
IRB)
9. IAD File No. / N
o
de dossier de la SAI: TB7-10237
Client ID No. / N
o
ID client: 6363-6862
8
2013 to live with him, it is reasonable to expect that the relationship would develop over time
and that it would not immediately be the type of serious committed relationship to qualify as a
conjugal relationship.21
Even with the reported December 2012 proposal and Ms. DHILLON’s
acceptance, I note that conjugal partners are not substitutes for fiancé(e)s and the relationship did
not move forward to marriage in the following years, either before or after the October 2014
sponsorship application. The appellant testified that Ms. DHILLON moved out of the shared
apartment in February 2016, which would be shortly after the 44 report was written against the
appellant. She later relocated to Alberta, where she presently lives with her brother.
[37] Having considered all the evidence before me, I find that the appellant and Ms.
DHILLON were likely not cohabiting in a conjugal relationship for at least one year at the time
the appellant landed in March 2014 and as such he was not required to declare her as a common-
law partner at the time of landing. As such, the 44 report allegations underlying the exclusion
order are not established on a balance of probabilities. The exclusion order issued by the ID is
therefore not legally valid.
[38] As Minister’s counsel rightly notes, the testimony at the appeal hearing raises serious
concerns as to the appellant filing a sponsorship for Ms. DHILLON when there was no trace of a
common-law relationship between them, and whether the sponsorship application filed by the
appellant was primarily for the purpose of Ms. DHILLON to gain PR status in Canada. Although
these new concerns arose from the appellant’s own testimony at the hearing, these are not the
allegations in the underlying 44 report and so cannot be considered as a basis for the removal
order in the present appeal.22
If the Minister wishes to pursue these as grounds of admissibility for misrepresentation, a new 44
report would need to be prepared against the appellant containing these new allegations.
CONCLUSION
21
See Cai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 816, wherein the couple were young students who had
a relationship and were living together since 2002 but the officer had not considered whether the applicant and his
sponsor shared a “mutual commitment to a shared life” and “enjoyed a permanent long-term relationship” at the
time of the January 2005 application for permanent residence.
22
See for example: Chen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2013 CanLII 98602 (CA IRB).
2018
CanLII
131181
(CA
IRB)
10. IAD File No. / N
o
de dossier de la SAI: TB7-10237
Client ID No. / N
o
ID client: 6363-6862
9
[39] As the allegations underlying the exclusion order have not been established on a balance
of probabilities, I find that the exclusion order is not valid in law. This appeal is therefore
allowed.
NOTICE OF DECISION
The appeal is allowed. The removal order is set aside.
J. Wagner
J. Wagner
October 31, 2018
Date
Judicial Review – Under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, you may make an application to
the Federal Court for judicial review of this decision, with leave of that Court. You may wish to get advice from
counsel as soon as possible, since there are time limits for this application.
2018
CanLII
131181
(CA
IRB)