Cases in Canadian Law
Dehghani v. Canada: The appellant, a citizen of Iran, arrived in Canada on May 13, 1989, and claimed refugee status. After being questioned in the primary examination line, he was referred to a secondary examination, which involved a long wait, and, as he did not speak English, an interpreter was provided for him. At the secondary interview, the appellant omitted significant facts. This case involves two issues that are worthy of analysis, as he claims, first of all, that he was detained in a manner that violated s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms during the secondary examination at the airport and, also, that this examination violated his right to counsel. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower court and dismissed the appeal. This decision substantiated the right of the state to have an interest in controlling entry into the country and that it is a valid procedure for individuals to undergo questioning when crossing international borders. After the secondary examination, the appellant was advised of his right to counsel to aid him in pursing his claim and he was subsequently represented by counsel in federal court. While having counsel is a crucial right, this case substantiates that it is not appropriate to all circumstances. Counsel is not provided for routine traffic stops. Likewise, the Court is justified in ruling that it is not required for routine immigration questioning.
Suresh v. Canada: In 1995, the Canadian government began steps to deport the appellant, a Sri Lankan Convention refugee, based on the assumption of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service that he was involved with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a terrorist organization. The appellant was never presented with a copy of the immigration officer's memorandum, and he was never afford the opportunity to respond to accusations made against him. The appellant submitted documentary evidence that indicates that Sri...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document