SlideShare a Scribd company logo
Date: 20180209
Docket: IMM-2962-17
Citation: 2018 FC 158
Ottawa, Ontario, February 9, 2018
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
BETWEEN:
SERHII PARANYCH
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondent
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] A delegate of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness issued an
exclusion order to Mr. Paranych pursuant to section 228 of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 for attempting to enter Canada to work without first
obtaining a work permit.
2018
FC
158
(CanLII)
Page: 2
[2] For the reasons that follow, this application for judicial review is allowed and the
exclusion order is set aside.
[3] Mr. Paranych is a 23 year old citizen of the Ukraine. He first came in Canada in October
2015, on a study permit and a work permit, valid until December 2016. He subsequently
obtained a further study permit valid until March 2017. He studied English from November
2015 to December 2015, and later studied at Greystone College of Business from January 2016
to December 2016.
[4] On June 14, 2017, he was issued a visitor permit valid until June 25, 2017. The permit
noted that his temporary resident status was restored pursuant to subsection 182(1) of the
Regulations, which allows an officer to restore the status of a visitor, worker, or student if they
apply within 90 days of losing their temporary resident status.
[5] On June 19, 2017, because his permit was about to expire, and because Mr. Paranych
wanted a work permit, he engaged in “flagpoling” at the port of entry in Surrey, British
Columbia. Flagpoling is a process whereby one applies for the renewal of a work or study
permit by leaving Canada at a border crossing with the U.S.A., and re-entering, usually
immediately. Apparently, this process is commonly used as it saves a lot of time when compared
to the process of making an application in writing or electronically.
[6] Upon re-entry to Canada, Mr. Paranych made an application for a work permit and was
interviewed by Border Service Officer Trainee Leone [BSOT Leone] and Border Service Officer
2018
FC
158
(CanLII)
Page: 3
Arkwright. The duration of the interview is in dispute, but the result was that Mr. Paranych was
required to return for further examination on June 26, 2017, as BSOT Leone suspected that he
had worked without authorization at the Coquitlam Milestone Restaurant from March 2017 to
June 2017.
[7] On June 26, 2017 after a further interview, BSOT Leone created a “Report Under
Subsection 44(1)” of the Act stating his belief that Mr. Paranych was inadmissible to Canada.
The Minister’s delegate Officer Antonio [the Officer] reviewed the report, interviewed Mr.
Paranych, and issued an exclusion order pursuant to section 228 of the Regulations. The order
states that the Officer was satisfied that on the balance of probabilities Mr. Paranych was a
foreign national described of the subsection 41(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act, SC 2001, c 27 and was thus inadmissible for failing to comply with the Act.
[8] Specifically the Officer references paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Act, which requires “[e]very
foreign national … who seeks to enter or remain in Canada must establish … to become a
temporary resident, that they hold the visa or other document required under the regulations”.
The Officer also observed that section 8 of the Regulations states that a “foreign national may
not enter Canada to work without first obtaining a work permit.”
[9] Following the issuance of the exclusion order, Mr. Paranych returned to the Ukraine on
July 6, 2017.
2018
FC
158
(CanLII)
Page: 4
[10] The application raises two issues. The first relates to the reasonableness of the decision,
and the second is a question of procedural fairness.
[11] The procedural fairness issue rests on the affidavit evidence of Mr. Paranych. He submits
that the statements he made that he had been working without a valid permit were not voluntary,
and thus should not have been relied on by the Officer. He says that he suffers from type 1
diabetes, and was held and questioned for approximately 7 hours. He did not have his
medication on him as he did not anticipate he would be held for questions for such a long period
of time. He swears that four to five hours into the interview he began to suffer from
hypoglycemia and advised BSOT Leone that he required insulin. He swears that BSOT Leone
responded that it was “not my problem if you didn’t bring your insulin with you” and that he was
not offered food or a sugary drink. The statement that he had been working without a valid
permit was made after the refusal to provide him with medical assistance.
[12] The others involved in the two interviews dispute the evidence offered, both as to the
duration of the interviews, and the request for medical assistance. However, in light of my
finding on the first issue, these differences need not be reconciled.
[13] As to the first issue, it is submitted that the decision was unreasonable because the
Officer was not authorized to make an exclusion order for the reasons, and on the basis, that he
did.
2018
FC
158
(CanLII)
Page: 5
[14] Mr. Paranych submits he was not in violation of paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Act or section
8 of the Regulations as he had temporary resident status as a visitor to Canada. He submits he
was not seeking to enter to Canada to work without a permit, but rather presented himself at the
border in order to apply for a work permit. He submits this is the same error this Court
recognized in Yang v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2014 FC
383 [Yang].
[15] The Minister submits that the Officer was authorized to make the exclusion order because
Mr. Paranych contravened the Act by failing to obtain a work permit before he started working at
Milestones in March 2017.
[16] I have concluded that Mr. Paranych’s position is correct. He was not in violation of
paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Act or section 8 of the Regulations. Moreover, the Officer was without
authorization to make an exclusion order for the alleged violation of working without
authorization.
[17] The Officer relied on section 228 of the Regulations to issue the exclusion order. That
section provides a limited number of grounds on which the Minister may make a removal order
rather than referring a report to the Immigration Division, as set out in subsection 44(2) of the
Act. Although the Officer does not state which specific ground he relies on, the Officer
references both sections 20 and 41 of the Act, indicating he is relying on sub-paragraph
228(1)(c)(iii) of the Regulations. That provision provides that an officer may issue a removal
order, and need not refer the matter to the Immigration Division, if the inadmissibility is under
2018
FC
158
(CanLII)
Page: 6
section 41 of the Act on grounds of “failing to establish that they hold the visa or other document
as required under section 20 of the Act.”
[18] In the circumstances of this case, the document required of Mr. Paranych under section
20 of the Act was “the visa or other document required under the regulations.” Mr. Paranych,
when he first approached the border, was in possession of a valid visitor’s permit. Pursuant to
that permit, he had every right to enter Canada.
[19] At the hearing, counsel for the Minister took the position that Mr. Paranych’s exit from
Canada to the U.S.A. created a situation such that he could no longer validly enter Canada under
his visitor permit. I note that this was not the basis on which the removal order was made. In
any event, I agree with counsel for Mr. Paranych that he was authorized to travel to the U.S.A.
and return to Canada. This is permitted pursuant to 190(3)(f) of the Regulations, which provides
as follows:
190 (3) A foreign national is exempt from the requirement to
obtain a temporary resident visa if they are seeking to enter and
remain in Canada solely
…
(f) to re-enter Canada following a visit solely to the United
States or St. Pierre and Miquelon, if they
• (i) held a study permit or a work permit that was
issued before they left Canada on such a visit or
were authorized to enter and remain in Canada as
a temporary resident, and
• (ii) return to Canada by the end of the period
initially authorized for their stay or any extension
to it.
2018
FC
158
(CanLII)
Page: 7
[20] The visitor’s permit authorized Mr. Paranych to enter and remain in Canada as a
temporary resident, and he returned to Canada before the end of the period it authorized.
[21] The Minister further submitted that the Officer’s exclusion order was reasonable as Mr.
Paranych had overstayed his permit by June 26th
when he returned for a second interview and the
order was issued. I agree that had he arrived at the border for the first time on June 26th
, it would
have been open to the Officer to issue such an exclusion order under subparagraph 228(1)(c)(iv)
of the Regulations.
[22] However, that is not the case before the Court. Rather he returned on June 26 th
as
required by the Officer. It would be manifestly unreasonable for an officer to require an
individual to return after the expiry of their permit, and then use that as the grounds to issue an
exclusion order. In any event, as noted, this is not the provision the Minister’s delegate relied on
to issue the exclusion order. The record is clear that reason for the exclusion order was for
working without authorization.
[23] Because Mr. Paranych did have the documents required by section 20 of the Act, namely
a visitor’s permit valid until June 25, 2017, when he arrived at the border, he was not attempting
to enter Canada to work without a work permit, as the Officer stated. Rather, rather he appeared
at the border for the purposes of obtaining a work permit. This case is analogous to Yang, where
this Court held at paragraphs 19-20:
As for s. 20 of IRPA, it was necessary that Ms. Yang held the
required visa or other document. She held a study permit. Counsel
for the Minister makes much of the fact that the permit did not
allow her to leave Canada and return. However, that was not the
2018
FC
158
(CanLII)
Page: 8
reason she was written up. Furthermore, a great deal of evidence
would have to be led with respect to the practice of "flagpoling"
before it could be said that Ms. Yang was in violation of s. 20.
Regulation 8 provides that "A foreign national may not enter
Canada to work without first obtaining a work permit." The
officers completely mischaracterized the situation. She was at the
border in order to apply for a work permit, not to enter Canada to
work without a work permit.
[24] As in Yang, the actual alleged violation was not seeking to enter Canada to work without
a work permit, but rather previously working without a permit while already in Canada. This
Court in Yang did not provide further analysis of the appropriate mechanism for dealing with this
alleged violation. However, this issue was considered by Justice Locke in Gupta v Canada
(Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2015 FC 1086 at paras 23-24:
The applicant also argues that an exclusion order is not the
appropriate sanction in these circumstances. He asserts that
concerns about alleged violation of a work permit should instead
be referred to the Immigration Division for consideration and, if
necessary, sanction. The applicant points to subsection 228(1) of
the IRPR which provides for various grounds of inadmissibility.
Some grounds of inadmissibility can lead to an exclusion order,
whereas others cannot and must instead be referred to the
Immigration Division. The applicant notes that the list of grounds
in paragraph 228(1)(c) (which concern inadmissibility under
section 41 of the IRPA and which can lead to an exclusion order)
is limited to matters that are quite straightforward to determine,
e.g. whether a person failed to appear, failed to leave Canada, or
failed to obtain an authorization. Other matters are not dealt with
by an exclusion order. The applicant notes also that this list of
grounds that can lead to an exclusion order includes subparagraph
228(1)(c)(iii) which refers to "failing to establish that they hold the
visa or other document as required under section 20 of the Act."
The applicability of this provision in the present situation is at the
center of this section of my analysis.
The applicant argues that the determination of whether the holder
of a work permit has contravened or will contravene the terms of
that permit is far from the kind of straightforward determination
that is contemplated in the rest of paragraph 228(1)(c) of the IRPR.
2018
FC
158
(CanLII)
Page: 9
For example, there may be issues of doubt as to the meaning of
certain conditions, as discussed in Brar v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship & Immigration), 2006 FC 1502 (F.C.). In the absence
of any jurisprudence on this question, and recognizing the
important consequences the Exclusion Order would have for the
applicant, I am inclined to agree with the applicant. I do not
conclude that any issues of doubt about the applicant's
contravention of the conditions of his work permit necessarily exist
in the present case, but the possibility of such issues does serve to
demonstrate that this type of situation (concern about alleged
violation of a work permit) should be referred to the Immigration
Division, and was not intended to be dealt with by means of an
exclusion order. It is certainly possible, based on the facts on the
record, that the applicant knowingly acted in violation of his work
permit (and even that he intended to continue working in violation
of his work permit), but that is a matter that should be addressed in
a forum other than a decision leading to an exclusion order.
[emphasis added]
[25] I agree with Justice Locke’s analysis. Working without a permit is not a breach of the
Act or Regulations for which the Officer had authorization to issue a removal order. The Officer
was instead required to refer a report to the Immigration Division, as set out in subsection 44(2)
of the Act.
[26] As the Officer was without authority to issue an exclusion order in these circumstances,
there is no need to determine whether Mr. Paranych’s right to procedural fairness was violated.
[27] What does require a determination is the use that might be made of the alleged
admissions made by Mr. Paranych and others, both in this case, and in the future. Because the
actions of the officers were without foundation, Mr. Paranych’s application for a work permit
ought to have been properly processed when he first appeared at the border crossing. There was
no requirement that he return, and that is especially so after the expiry of his visitor’s permit, as
2018
FC
158
(CanLII)
Page: 10
happened in this case. In light of my findings, I shall issue an order that nothing stated by Mr.
Paranych or others may be used in any future application he may bring or proceeding relating to
him.
[28] Given that he has returned to the Ukraine, the appropriate remedy is to quash the
exclusion order.
[29] Counsel proposed that the Court certify as a question of general importance, dispositive
of this matter, the question of whether the definition or “work” under section 2 of the
Regulations includes unpaid work. I agree with the Respondent that this question is not
appropriate for certification given the basis for my decision.
2018
FC
158
(CanLII)
JUDGMENT in IMM-2962-17
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT IS that:
1. This application is allowed;
2. The exclusion order issued against Serhii Paranych is quashed;
3. No statement made by Serhii Paranych, during his interviews with border officers on
June 19, 2017 and June 26, 2017, or any statement made as a consequence of questioning
him regarding his work activities during his period of residence in Canada may be
considered or used against him in any future application or proceeding; and
4. No question is certified.
"Russel W. Zinn"
Judge
2018
FC
158
(CanLII)
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2962-17
STYLE OF CAUSE: SERHII PARANYCH v THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC
SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
PLACE OF HEARING: VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA
DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 24, 2018
JUDGMENT AND REASONS: ZINN J.
DATED: FEBRUARY 9, 2018
APPEARANCES:
Shivani Sidhu FOR THE APPLICANT
Francois Paradis FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Katrina Sriranpong
Barrister & Solicitor
Richmond, B.C.
FOR THE APPLICANT
Attorney General of Canada
Department of Justice Canada
British Columbia Regional Office
Vancouver, B.C.
FOR THE RESPONDENT
2018
FC
158
(CanLII)

More Related Content

Similar to Paranych v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 158 (CanLII)

Allahabad hc tablighi order
Allahabad hc tablighi orderAllahabad hc tablighi order
Allahabad hc tablighi order
ZahidManiyar
 
Dealing with the unlawful presence bars in immigration court
Dealing with the unlawful presence bars in immigration courtDealing with the unlawful presence bars in immigration court
Dealing with the unlawful presence bars in immigration court
Umesh Heendeniya
 
Steven Duesing, Nicole Mathis v. The Attorney General of Canada
Steven Duesing, Nicole Mathis v. The Attorney General of CanadaSteven Duesing, Nicole Mathis v. The Attorney General of Canada
Steven Duesing, Nicole Mathis v. The Attorney General of Canada
Guy Boulianne
 
Workshop 4 2.0
Workshop 4 2.0Workshop 4 2.0
Workshop 4 2.0
SaadHabib18
 
New CIS Policy Memo Provides “Lasting Relief” to Some Special Immigrant Relig...
New CIS Policy Memo Provides “Lasting Relief” to Some Special Immigrant Relig...New CIS Policy Memo Provides “Lasting Relief” to Some Special Immigrant Relig...
New CIS Policy Memo Provides “Lasting Relief” to Some Special Immigrant Relig...
Nachman Phulwani Zimovcak (NPZ) Law Group, P.C.
 
Change of Conditions and Change of Status under the Immigration Act 19 of 2014
Change of Conditions and Change of Status under the Immigration Act 19 of 2014Change of Conditions and Change of Status under the Immigration Act 19 of 2014
Change of Conditions and Change of Status under the Immigration Act 19 of 2014
MacGregor Kufa
 
Bundhel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1147 (CanLII)
Bundhel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1147 (CanLII)Bundhel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1147 (CanLII)
Bundhel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1147 (CanLII)
Katrina Sriranpong
 

Similar to Paranych v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 158 (CanLII) (7)

Allahabad hc tablighi order
Allahabad hc tablighi orderAllahabad hc tablighi order
Allahabad hc tablighi order
 
Dealing with the unlawful presence bars in immigration court
Dealing with the unlawful presence bars in immigration courtDealing with the unlawful presence bars in immigration court
Dealing with the unlawful presence bars in immigration court
 
Steven Duesing, Nicole Mathis v. The Attorney General of Canada
Steven Duesing, Nicole Mathis v. The Attorney General of CanadaSteven Duesing, Nicole Mathis v. The Attorney General of Canada
Steven Duesing, Nicole Mathis v. The Attorney General of Canada
 
Workshop 4 2.0
Workshop 4 2.0Workshop 4 2.0
Workshop 4 2.0
 
New CIS Policy Memo Provides “Lasting Relief” to Some Special Immigrant Relig...
New CIS Policy Memo Provides “Lasting Relief” to Some Special Immigrant Relig...New CIS Policy Memo Provides “Lasting Relief” to Some Special Immigrant Relig...
New CIS Policy Memo Provides “Lasting Relief” to Some Special Immigrant Relig...
 
Change of Conditions and Change of Status under the Immigration Act 19 of 2014
Change of Conditions and Change of Status under the Immigration Act 19 of 2014Change of Conditions and Change of Status under the Immigration Act 19 of 2014
Change of Conditions and Change of Status under the Immigration Act 19 of 2014
 
Bundhel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1147 (CanLII)
Bundhel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1147 (CanLII)Bundhel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1147 (CanLII)
Bundhel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1147 (CanLII)
 

More from Katrina Sriranpong

Katrina Sriranpong in the New Arab, Gaza is the most lethal place in the worl...
Katrina Sriranpong in the New Arab, Gaza is the most lethal place in the worl...Katrina Sriranpong in the New Arab, Gaza is the most lethal place in the worl...
Katrina Sriranpong in the New Arab, Gaza is the most lethal place in the worl...
Katrina Sriranpong
 
If there is a Hell on Earth, it is the Lives of Children in Gaza.pdf
If there is a Hell on Earth, it is the Lives of Children in Gaza.pdfIf there is a Hell on Earth, it is the Lives of Children in Gaza.pdf
If there is a Hell on Earth, it is the Lives of Children in Gaza.pdf
Katrina Sriranpong
 
Frankie's Burgers Lougheed Inc. v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)...
Frankie's Burgers Lougheed Inc. v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)...Frankie's Burgers Lougheed Inc. v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)...
Frankie's Burgers Lougheed Inc. v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)...
Katrina Sriranpong
 
Frontline Framing Ltd. v. Canada (Social Development), 2014 FC 941 (CanLII)
Frontline Framing Ltd. v. Canada (Social Development), 2014 FC 941 (CanLII)Frontline Framing Ltd. v. Canada (Social Development), 2014 FC 941 (CanLII)
Frontline Framing Ltd. v. Canada (Social Development), 2014 FC 941 (CanLII)
Katrina Sriranpong
 
Momi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 50 (CanLII)
Momi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 50 (CanLII)Momi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 50 (CanLII)
Momi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 50 (CanLII)
Katrina Sriranpong
 
INFORMATIONAL ARTICLE.docx
INFORMATIONAL ARTICLE.docxINFORMATIONAL ARTICLE.docx
INFORMATIONAL ARTICLE.docx
Katrina Sriranpong
 

More from Katrina Sriranpong (6)

Katrina Sriranpong in the New Arab, Gaza is the most lethal place in the worl...
Katrina Sriranpong in the New Arab, Gaza is the most lethal place in the worl...Katrina Sriranpong in the New Arab, Gaza is the most lethal place in the worl...
Katrina Sriranpong in the New Arab, Gaza is the most lethal place in the worl...
 
If there is a Hell on Earth, it is the Lives of Children in Gaza.pdf
If there is a Hell on Earth, it is the Lives of Children in Gaza.pdfIf there is a Hell on Earth, it is the Lives of Children in Gaza.pdf
If there is a Hell on Earth, it is the Lives of Children in Gaza.pdf
 
Frankie's Burgers Lougheed Inc. v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)...
Frankie's Burgers Lougheed Inc. v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)...Frankie's Burgers Lougheed Inc. v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)...
Frankie's Burgers Lougheed Inc. v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)...
 
Frontline Framing Ltd. v. Canada (Social Development), 2014 FC 941 (CanLII)
Frontline Framing Ltd. v. Canada (Social Development), 2014 FC 941 (CanLII)Frontline Framing Ltd. v. Canada (Social Development), 2014 FC 941 (CanLII)
Frontline Framing Ltd. v. Canada (Social Development), 2014 FC 941 (CanLII)
 
Momi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 50 (CanLII)
Momi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 50 (CanLII)Momi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 50 (CanLII)
Momi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 50 (CanLII)
 
INFORMATIONAL ARTICLE.docx
INFORMATIONAL ARTICLE.docxINFORMATIONAL ARTICLE.docx
INFORMATIONAL ARTICLE.docx
 

Recently uploaded

The Work Permit for Self-Employed Persons in Italy
The Work Permit for Self-Employed Persons in ItalyThe Work Permit for Self-Employed Persons in Italy
The Work Permit for Self-Employed Persons in Italy
BridgeWest.eu
 
一比一原版伯恩茅斯大学毕业证(bu毕业证)如何办理
一比一原版伯恩茅斯大学毕业证(bu毕业证)如何办理一比一原版伯恩茅斯大学毕业证(bu毕业证)如何办理
一比一原版伯恩茅斯大学毕业证(bu毕业证)如何办理
ymefneb
 
一比一原版林肯大学毕业证(lincoln毕业证)如何办理
一比一原版林肯大学毕业证(lincoln毕业证)如何办理一比一原版林肯大学毕业证(lincoln毕业证)如何办理
一比一原版林肯大学毕业证(lincoln毕业证)如何办理
fexbqa
 
suture removal ppt.pptx medical surgical
suture removal ppt.pptx medical surgicalsuture removal ppt.pptx medical surgical
suture removal ppt.pptx medical surgical
AlanSudhan
 
一比一原版(liverpool毕业证书)利物浦大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(liverpool毕业证书)利物浦大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(liverpool毕业证书)利物浦大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(liverpool毕业证书)利物浦大学毕业证如何办理
aypxuyw
 
V.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdf
V.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdfV.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdf
V.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdf
bhavenpr
 
It's the Law: Recent Court and Administrative Decisions of Interest
It's the Law: Recent Court and Administrative Decisions of InterestIt's the Law: Recent Court and Administrative Decisions of Interest
It's the Law: Recent Court and Administrative Decisions of Interest
Parsons Behle & Latimer
 
一比一原版多伦多都会大学毕业证(TMU毕业证书)学历如何办理
一比一原版多伦多都会大学毕业证(TMU毕业证书)学历如何办理一比一原版多伦多都会大学毕业证(TMU毕业证书)学历如何办理
一比一原版多伦多都会大学毕业证(TMU毕业证书)学历如何办理
woywevt
 
一比一原版新加坡南洋理工大学毕业证(本硕)ntu学位证书如何办理
一比一原版新加坡南洋理工大学毕业证(本硕)ntu学位证书如何办理一比一原版新加坡南洋理工大学毕业证(本硕)ntu学位证书如何办理
一比一原版新加坡南洋理工大学毕业证(本硕)ntu学位证书如何办理
hedonxu
 
Corporate Governance : Scope and Legal Framework
Corporate Governance : Scope and Legal FrameworkCorporate Governance : Scope and Legal Framework
Corporate Governance : Scope and Legal Framework
devaki57
 
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdf
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdfThe Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdf
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdf
veteranlegal
 
Capital Punishment by Saif Javed (LLM)ppt.pptx
Capital Punishment by Saif Javed (LLM)ppt.pptxCapital Punishment by Saif Javed (LLM)ppt.pptx
Capital Punishment by Saif Javed (LLM)ppt.pptx
OmGod1
 
Integrating Advocacy and Legal Tactics to Tackle Online Consumer Complaints
Integrating Advocacy and Legal Tactics to Tackle Online Consumer ComplaintsIntegrating Advocacy and Legal Tactics to Tackle Online Consumer Complaints
Integrating Advocacy and Legal Tactics to Tackle Online Consumer Complaints
seoglobal20
 
一比一原版新加坡国立大学毕业证(本硕)nus学位证书如何办理
一比一原版新加坡国立大学毕业证(本硕)nus学位证书如何办理一比一原版新加坡国立大学毕业证(本硕)nus学位证书如何办理
一比一原版新加坡国立大学毕业证(本硕)nus学位证书如何办理
ucoux1
 
Business Laws Sunita saha
Business Laws Sunita sahaBusiness Laws Sunita saha
Business Laws Sunita saha
sunitasaha5
 
一比一原版(ua毕业证书)加拿大阿尔伯塔大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(ua毕业证书)加拿大阿尔伯塔大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(ua毕业证书)加拿大阿尔伯塔大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(ua毕业证书)加拿大阿尔伯塔大学毕业证如何办理
ubype
 
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptx
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxGenocide in International Criminal Law.pptx
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptx
MasoudZamani13
 
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at SeaSan Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea
Justin Ordoyo
 
一比一原版(glasgow毕业证书)格拉斯哥大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(glasgow毕业证书)格拉斯哥大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(glasgow毕业证书)格拉斯哥大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(glasgow毕业证书)格拉斯哥大学毕业证如何办理
ooqzo
 
17-03 2022 -full agreement full version .pdf
17-03 2022 -full agreement full version .pdf17-03 2022 -full agreement full version .pdf
17-03 2022 -full agreement full version .pdf
ssuser0dfed9
 

Recently uploaded (20)

The Work Permit for Self-Employed Persons in Italy
The Work Permit for Self-Employed Persons in ItalyThe Work Permit for Self-Employed Persons in Italy
The Work Permit for Self-Employed Persons in Italy
 
一比一原版伯恩茅斯大学毕业证(bu毕业证)如何办理
一比一原版伯恩茅斯大学毕业证(bu毕业证)如何办理一比一原版伯恩茅斯大学毕业证(bu毕业证)如何办理
一比一原版伯恩茅斯大学毕业证(bu毕业证)如何办理
 
一比一原版林肯大学毕业证(lincoln毕业证)如何办理
一比一原版林肯大学毕业证(lincoln毕业证)如何办理一比一原版林肯大学毕业证(lincoln毕业证)如何办理
一比一原版林肯大学毕业证(lincoln毕业证)如何办理
 
suture removal ppt.pptx medical surgical
suture removal ppt.pptx medical surgicalsuture removal ppt.pptx medical surgical
suture removal ppt.pptx medical surgical
 
一比一原版(liverpool毕业证书)利物浦大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(liverpool毕业证书)利物浦大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(liverpool毕业证书)利物浦大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(liverpool毕业证书)利物浦大学毕业证如何办理
 
V.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdf
V.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdfV.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdf
V.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdf
 
It's the Law: Recent Court and Administrative Decisions of Interest
It's the Law: Recent Court and Administrative Decisions of InterestIt's the Law: Recent Court and Administrative Decisions of Interest
It's the Law: Recent Court and Administrative Decisions of Interest
 
一比一原版多伦多都会大学毕业证(TMU毕业证书)学历如何办理
一比一原版多伦多都会大学毕业证(TMU毕业证书)学历如何办理一比一原版多伦多都会大学毕业证(TMU毕业证书)学历如何办理
一比一原版多伦多都会大学毕业证(TMU毕业证书)学历如何办理
 
一比一原版新加坡南洋理工大学毕业证(本硕)ntu学位证书如何办理
一比一原版新加坡南洋理工大学毕业证(本硕)ntu学位证书如何办理一比一原版新加坡南洋理工大学毕业证(本硕)ntu学位证书如何办理
一比一原版新加坡南洋理工大学毕业证(本硕)ntu学位证书如何办理
 
Corporate Governance : Scope and Legal Framework
Corporate Governance : Scope and Legal FrameworkCorporate Governance : Scope and Legal Framework
Corporate Governance : Scope and Legal Framework
 
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdf
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdfThe Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdf
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdf
 
Capital Punishment by Saif Javed (LLM)ppt.pptx
Capital Punishment by Saif Javed (LLM)ppt.pptxCapital Punishment by Saif Javed (LLM)ppt.pptx
Capital Punishment by Saif Javed (LLM)ppt.pptx
 
Integrating Advocacy and Legal Tactics to Tackle Online Consumer Complaints
Integrating Advocacy and Legal Tactics to Tackle Online Consumer ComplaintsIntegrating Advocacy and Legal Tactics to Tackle Online Consumer Complaints
Integrating Advocacy and Legal Tactics to Tackle Online Consumer Complaints
 
一比一原版新加坡国立大学毕业证(本硕)nus学位证书如何办理
一比一原版新加坡国立大学毕业证(本硕)nus学位证书如何办理一比一原版新加坡国立大学毕业证(本硕)nus学位证书如何办理
一比一原版新加坡国立大学毕业证(本硕)nus学位证书如何办理
 
Business Laws Sunita saha
Business Laws Sunita sahaBusiness Laws Sunita saha
Business Laws Sunita saha
 
一比一原版(ua毕业证书)加拿大阿尔伯塔大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(ua毕业证书)加拿大阿尔伯塔大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(ua毕业证书)加拿大阿尔伯塔大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(ua毕业证书)加拿大阿尔伯塔大学毕业证如何办理
 
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptx
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxGenocide in International Criminal Law.pptx
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptx
 
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at SeaSan Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea
 
一比一原版(glasgow毕业证书)格拉斯哥大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(glasgow毕业证书)格拉斯哥大学毕业证如何办理一比一原版(glasgow毕业证书)格拉斯哥大学毕业证如何办理
一比一原版(glasgow毕业证书)格拉斯哥大学毕业证如何办理
 
17-03 2022 -full agreement full version .pdf
17-03 2022 -full agreement full version .pdf17-03 2022 -full agreement full version .pdf
17-03 2022 -full agreement full version .pdf
 

Paranych v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 158 (CanLII)

  • 1. Date: 20180209 Docket: IMM-2962-17 Citation: 2018 FC 158 Ottawa, Ontario, February 9, 2018 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn BETWEEN: SERHII PARANYCH Applicant and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] A delegate of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness issued an exclusion order to Mr. Paranych pursuant to section 228 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 for attempting to enter Canada to work without first obtaining a work permit. 2018 FC 158 (CanLII)
  • 2. Page: 2 [2] For the reasons that follow, this application for judicial review is allowed and the exclusion order is set aside. [3] Mr. Paranych is a 23 year old citizen of the Ukraine. He first came in Canada in October 2015, on a study permit and a work permit, valid until December 2016. He subsequently obtained a further study permit valid until March 2017. He studied English from November 2015 to December 2015, and later studied at Greystone College of Business from January 2016 to December 2016. [4] On June 14, 2017, he was issued a visitor permit valid until June 25, 2017. The permit noted that his temporary resident status was restored pursuant to subsection 182(1) of the Regulations, which allows an officer to restore the status of a visitor, worker, or student if they apply within 90 days of losing their temporary resident status. [5] On June 19, 2017, because his permit was about to expire, and because Mr. Paranych wanted a work permit, he engaged in “flagpoling” at the port of entry in Surrey, British Columbia. Flagpoling is a process whereby one applies for the renewal of a work or study permit by leaving Canada at a border crossing with the U.S.A., and re-entering, usually immediately. Apparently, this process is commonly used as it saves a lot of time when compared to the process of making an application in writing or electronically. [6] Upon re-entry to Canada, Mr. Paranych made an application for a work permit and was interviewed by Border Service Officer Trainee Leone [BSOT Leone] and Border Service Officer 2018 FC 158 (CanLII)
  • 3. Page: 3 Arkwright. The duration of the interview is in dispute, but the result was that Mr. Paranych was required to return for further examination on June 26, 2017, as BSOT Leone suspected that he had worked without authorization at the Coquitlam Milestone Restaurant from March 2017 to June 2017. [7] On June 26, 2017 after a further interview, BSOT Leone created a “Report Under Subsection 44(1)” of the Act stating his belief that Mr. Paranych was inadmissible to Canada. The Minister’s delegate Officer Antonio [the Officer] reviewed the report, interviewed Mr. Paranych, and issued an exclusion order pursuant to section 228 of the Regulations. The order states that the Officer was satisfied that on the balance of probabilities Mr. Paranych was a foreign national described of the subsection 41(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 and was thus inadmissible for failing to comply with the Act. [8] Specifically the Officer references paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Act, which requires “[e]very foreign national … who seeks to enter or remain in Canada must establish … to become a temporary resident, that they hold the visa or other document required under the regulations”. The Officer also observed that section 8 of the Regulations states that a “foreign national may not enter Canada to work without first obtaining a work permit.” [9] Following the issuance of the exclusion order, Mr. Paranych returned to the Ukraine on July 6, 2017. 2018 FC 158 (CanLII)
  • 4. Page: 4 [10] The application raises two issues. The first relates to the reasonableness of the decision, and the second is a question of procedural fairness. [11] The procedural fairness issue rests on the affidavit evidence of Mr. Paranych. He submits that the statements he made that he had been working without a valid permit were not voluntary, and thus should not have been relied on by the Officer. He says that he suffers from type 1 diabetes, and was held and questioned for approximately 7 hours. He did not have his medication on him as he did not anticipate he would be held for questions for such a long period of time. He swears that four to five hours into the interview he began to suffer from hypoglycemia and advised BSOT Leone that he required insulin. He swears that BSOT Leone responded that it was “not my problem if you didn’t bring your insulin with you” and that he was not offered food or a sugary drink. The statement that he had been working without a valid permit was made after the refusal to provide him with medical assistance. [12] The others involved in the two interviews dispute the evidence offered, both as to the duration of the interviews, and the request for medical assistance. However, in light of my finding on the first issue, these differences need not be reconciled. [13] As to the first issue, it is submitted that the decision was unreasonable because the Officer was not authorized to make an exclusion order for the reasons, and on the basis, that he did. 2018 FC 158 (CanLII)
  • 5. Page: 5 [14] Mr. Paranych submits he was not in violation of paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Act or section 8 of the Regulations as he had temporary resident status as a visitor to Canada. He submits he was not seeking to enter to Canada to work without a permit, but rather presented himself at the border in order to apply for a work permit. He submits this is the same error this Court recognized in Yang v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2014 FC 383 [Yang]. [15] The Minister submits that the Officer was authorized to make the exclusion order because Mr. Paranych contravened the Act by failing to obtain a work permit before he started working at Milestones in March 2017. [16] I have concluded that Mr. Paranych’s position is correct. He was not in violation of paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Act or section 8 of the Regulations. Moreover, the Officer was without authorization to make an exclusion order for the alleged violation of working without authorization. [17] The Officer relied on section 228 of the Regulations to issue the exclusion order. That section provides a limited number of grounds on which the Minister may make a removal order rather than referring a report to the Immigration Division, as set out in subsection 44(2) of the Act. Although the Officer does not state which specific ground he relies on, the Officer references both sections 20 and 41 of the Act, indicating he is relying on sub-paragraph 228(1)(c)(iii) of the Regulations. That provision provides that an officer may issue a removal order, and need not refer the matter to the Immigration Division, if the inadmissibility is under 2018 FC 158 (CanLII)
  • 6. Page: 6 section 41 of the Act on grounds of “failing to establish that they hold the visa or other document as required under section 20 of the Act.” [18] In the circumstances of this case, the document required of Mr. Paranych under section 20 of the Act was “the visa or other document required under the regulations.” Mr. Paranych, when he first approached the border, was in possession of a valid visitor’s permit. Pursuant to that permit, he had every right to enter Canada. [19] At the hearing, counsel for the Minister took the position that Mr. Paranych’s exit from Canada to the U.S.A. created a situation such that he could no longer validly enter Canada under his visitor permit. I note that this was not the basis on which the removal order was made. In any event, I agree with counsel for Mr. Paranych that he was authorized to travel to the U.S.A. and return to Canada. This is permitted pursuant to 190(3)(f) of the Regulations, which provides as follows: 190 (3) A foreign national is exempt from the requirement to obtain a temporary resident visa if they are seeking to enter and remain in Canada solely … (f) to re-enter Canada following a visit solely to the United States or St. Pierre and Miquelon, if they • (i) held a study permit or a work permit that was issued before they left Canada on such a visit or were authorized to enter and remain in Canada as a temporary resident, and • (ii) return to Canada by the end of the period initially authorized for their stay or any extension to it. 2018 FC 158 (CanLII)
  • 7. Page: 7 [20] The visitor’s permit authorized Mr. Paranych to enter and remain in Canada as a temporary resident, and he returned to Canada before the end of the period it authorized. [21] The Minister further submitted that the Officer’s exclusion order was reasonable as Mr. Paranych had overstayed his permit by June 26th when he returned for a second interview and the order was issued. I agree that had he arrived at the border for the first time on June 26th , it would have been open to the Officer to issue such an exclusion order under subparagraph 228(1)(c)(iv) of the Regulations. [22] However, that is not the case before the Court. Rather he returned on June 26 th as required by the Officer. It would be manifestly unreasonable for an officer to require an individual to return after the expiry of their permit, and then use that as the grounds to issue an exclusion order. In any event, as noted, this is not the provision the Minister’s delegate relied on to issue the exclusion order. The record is clear that reason for the exclusion order was for working without authorization. [23] Because Mr. Paranych did have the documents required by section 20 of the Act, namely a visitor’s permit valid until June 25, 2017, when he arrived at the border, he was not attempting to enter Canada to work without a work permit, as the Officer stated. Rather, rather he appeared at the border for the purposes of obtaining a work permit. This case is analogous to Yang, where this Court held at paragraphs 19-20: As for s. 20 of IRPA, it was necessary that Ms. Yang held the required visa or other document. She held a study permit. Counsel for the Minister makes much of the fact that the permit did not allow her to leave Canada and return. However, that was not the 2018 FC 158 (CanLII)
  • 8. Page: 8 reason she was written up. Furthermore, a great deal of evidence would have to be led with respect to the practice of "flagpoling" before it could be said that Ms. Yang was in violation of s. 20. Regulation 8 provides that "A foreign national may not enter Canada to work without first obtaining a work permit." The officers completely mischaracterized the situation. She was at the border in order to apply for a work permit, not to enter Canada to work without a work permit. [24] As in Yang, the actual alleged violation was not seeking to enter Canada to work without a work permit, but rather previously working without a permit while already in Canada. This Court in Yang did not provide further analysis of the appropriate mechanism for dealing with this alleged violation. However, this issue was considered by Justice Locke in Gupta v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2015 FC 1086 at paras 23-24: The applicant also argues that an exclusion order is not the appropriate sanction in these circumstances. He asserts that concerns about alleged violation of a work permit should instead be referred to the Immigration Division for consideration and, if necessary, sanction. The applicant points to subsection 228(1) of the IRPR which provides for various grounds of inadmissibility. Some grounds of inadmissibility can lead to an exclusion order, whereas others cannot and must instead be referred to the Immigration Division. The applicant notes that the list of grounds in paragraph 228(1)(c) (which concern inadmissibility under section 41 of the IRPA and which can lead to an exclusion order) is limited to matters that are quite straightforward to determine, e.g. whether a person failed to appear, failed to leave Canada, or failed to obtain an authorization. Other matters are not dealt with by an exclusion order. The applicant notes also that this list of grounds that can lead to an exclusion order includes subparagraph 228(1)(c)(iii) which refers to "failing to establish that they hold the visa or other document as required under section 20 of the Act." The applicability of this provision in the present situation is at the center of this section of my analysis. The applicant argues that the determination of whether the holder of a work permit has contravened or will contravene the terms of that permit is far from the kind of straightforward determination that is contemplated in the rest of paragraph 228(1)(c) of the IRPR. 2018 FC 158 (CanLII)
  • 9. Page: 9 For example, there may be issues of doubt as to the meaning of certain conditions, as discussed in Brar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2006 FC 1502 (F.C.). In the absence of any jurisprudence on this question, and recognizing the important consequences the Exclusion Order would have for the applicant, I am inclined to agree with the applicant. I do not conclude that any issues of doubt about the applicant's contravention of the conditions of his work permit necessarily exist in the present case, but the possibility of such issues does serve to demonstrate that this type of situation (concern about alleged violation of a work permit) should be referred to the Immigration Division, and was not intended to be dealt with by means of an exclusion order. It is certainly possible, based on the facts on the record, that the applicant knowingly acted in violation of his work permit (and even that he intended to continue working in violation of his work permit), but that is a matter that should be addressed in a forum other than a decision leading to an exclusion order. [emphasis added] [25] I agree with Justice Locke’s analysis. Working without a permit is not a breach of the Act or Regulations for which the Officer had authorization to issue a removal order. The Officer was instead required to refer a report to the Immigration Division, as set out in subsection 44(2) of the Act. [26] As the Officer was without authority to issue an exclusion order in these circumstances, there is no need to determine whether Mr. Paranych’s right to procedural fairness was violated. [27] What does require a determination is the use that might be made of the alleged admissions made by Mr. Paranych and others, both in this case, and in the future. Because the actions of the officers were without foundation, Mr. Paranych’s application for a work permit ought to have been properly processed when he first appeared at the border crossing. There was no requirement that he return, and that is especially so after the expiry of his visitor’s permit, as 2018 FC 158 (CanLII)
  • 10. Page: 10 happened in this case. In light of my findings, I shall issue an order that nothing stated by Mr. Paranych or others may be used in any future application he may bring or proceeding relating to him. [28] Given that he has returned to the Ukraine, the appropriate remedy is to quash the exclusion order. [29] Counsel proposed that the Court certify as a question of general importance, dispositive of this matter, the question of whether the definition or “work” under section 2 of the Regulations includes unpaid work. I agree with the Respondent that this question is not appropriate for certification given the basis for my decision. 2018 FC 158 (CanLII)
  • 11. JUDGMENT in IMM-2962-17 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT IS that: 1. This application is allowed; 2. The exclusion order issued against Serhii Paranych is quashed; 3. No statement made by Serhii Paranych, during his interviews with border officers on June 19, 2017 and June 26, 2017, or any statement made as a consequence of questioning him regarding his work activities during his period of residence in Canada may be considered or used against him in any future application or proceeding; and 4. No question is certified. "Russel W. Zinn" Judge 2018 FC 158 (CanLII)
  • 12. FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-2962-17 STYLE OF CAUSE: SERHII PARANYCH v THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLACE OF HEARING: VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 24, 2018 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: ZINN J. DATED: FEBRUARY 9, 2018 APPEARANCES: Shivani Sidhu FOR THE APPLICANT Francois Paradis FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Katrina Sriranpong Barrister & Solicitor Richmond, B.C. FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Department of Justice Canada British Columbia Regional Office Vancouver, B.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT 2018 FC 158 (CanLII)