Category: Inadmissible Classes

The court interpreted inadmissibility under section 37 (1) and held that a member can infer that a group of people who commit a crime together constitute an organization for the purposes of 37.

The Court upheld a finding that the applicant was inadmissible. The Court upheld the finding that the plan to ensure the applicant would not impose a burden on social services was inadequate.

The Court set aside a finding of the visa officer that the applicant was inadmissible on security grounds. The Court found that the evidence which included secret evidence not disclosed to the applicant did not meet the reasonable grounds threshold and that the inferences of the officer were unreasonable.

The court set aside a decision that the applicant was inadmissible on medical grounds. The applicant's had HIV and required prescription drugs whose cost could be covered by the ontario drug plan. They indicated that they would not access the plan. The court held that their intention to not access the plan was a relevant consideration and that the officer ought to have given the applicants' an opportunity to address any concerns about their plans.

The Court upheld a finding of inadmissibility under 34 (1) concluding that the finding the applicant was a member of a terrorist organization was reasonable.

The Court upheld a decision of the Immigration Division which found the applicant inadmissible due to his membership in a terrorist organization. The Applicant joined the organization long after it had stopped engaging in terrorist activities. The Court held that given that it was the same organization the applicant was inadmissible even though he joined long after the organization had engaged in acts of terrorism. The Court certified a question.

The Court set aside a decision of an officer who had found the applicant inadmissible holding that the officer had failed to consider the defenses raised by the Applicant.

The Court set aside a finding of misrepresentation. Although there were errors in the application they were inadvertent and were not material.

The Court set aside a decision that the applicant had misrepresented. The applicant was accused of having another person take his medical. The applicant asked for a copy of the documents that were substituted and was not given them. The Court set aside the decision.

The Applicant entered Canada on a work permit pursuant to the BC Provincial Nominee Program. He enrolled his child in a public school. During the course of the finalization of the application for permanent residence the officer noted that the child required special education. The applicant who had the resources enrolled his son in a private school. The officer doubted the applicant's intention due to the fact he had studied in a public school but did not advise the applicant of his concern. The Court found a breach of natural justice.