Federal Court Decision Misrepresentation eTA Application.
Oct 18th 2018, 9:12 pm
#1
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Somewhere between Vancouver & St Johns
Posts: 19,846
Federal Court Decision Misrepresentation eTA Application.
The Federal Court have just released this ruling regarding misrepresentation when filling out and submitting a eTA application.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc...018fc1020.html
Basically the applicant ticked NO to the question in relation to “Have you ever committed, been arrested for, been charged with or convicted of any criminal offence in any country?”,
The applicant had been convicted in Bermuda but it was later expunged and he had been charged in the US but the charges were dismissed. He did not believe it was necessary to declare these matters in response to the question on the eTA.
In the Analysis the Judge said this
Mr. Smith argues that the Officer over-emphasized the clarity of the question and did not accept his explanation for the mistake. I agree that in certain cases an officer may have an obligation to consider in more detail the surrounding circumstances, such as where the question at issue could be subject to various interpretations or where the unique circumstances are not responsive to the question at issue. Here, however, I agree with the Officer that the question in this case — “Have you ever committed, been arrested for, been charged with or convicted of any criminal offence in any country?” — is not vague or misleading.
[15] On judicial review it is not the role of the court to re-weigh the evidence provided that the officer’s decision is reasonable (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 (CanLII) at para 61). Here the decision is reasonable and was within the Officer’s exercise of discretion and is therefore owed deference by this Court.
IMHO (my words) the question must be read in its entirety and answered honestly even if a record was expunged, pardoned or the case was dismissed.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc...018fc1020.html
Basically the applicant ticked NO to the question in relation to “Have you ever committed, been arrested for, been charged with or convicted of any criminal offence in any country?”,
The applicant had been convicted in Bermuda but it was later expunged and he had been charged in the US but the charges were dismissed. He did not believe it was necessary to declare these matters in response to the question on the eTA.
In the Analysis the Judge said this
Mr. Smith argues that the Officer over-emphasized the clarity of the question and did not accept his explanation for the mistake. I agree that in certain cases an officer may have an obligation to consider in more detail the surrounding circumstances, such as where the question at issue could be subject to various interpretations or where the unique circumstances are not responsive to the question at issue. Here, however, I agree with the Officer that the question in this case — “Have you ever committed, been arrested for, been charged with or convicted of any criminal offence in any country?” — is not vague or misleading.
[15] On judicial review it is not the role of the court to re-weigh the evidence provided that the officer’s decision is reasonable (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 (CanLII) at para 61). Here the decision is reasonable and was within the Officer’s exercise of discretion and is therefore owed deference by this Court.
IMHO (my words) the question must be read in its entirety and answered honestly even if a record was expunged, pardoned or the case was dismissed.
