Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Khosa
Encyclopedia
Canada v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada
decision in administrative law.
reviewed the assessment of the IAD and found it to be reasonable. That decision was then appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal which then found that the decision had not been reasonable when they denied relief and set the decision aside.
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
decision in administrative law.
Facts
Khosa was a citizen of India who immigrated to Canada with his family in 1996 at the age of 14. He was found guilty in 2002 of criminal negligence causing death and sentenced to a conditional sentence of two years less a day. A removal order was issued for him to return to India.Judicial History
Khosa appealed the order to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board. The majority of the IAD denied Khosa "special relief" on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. On appeal, the Federal CourtFederal Court (Canada)
The Federal Court is a Canadian trial court that hears cases arising under certain areas of federal law. The Federal Court is a superior court with nationwide jurisdiction...
reviewed the assessment of the IAD and found it to be reasonable. That decision was then appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal which then found that the decision had not been reasonable when they denied relief and set the decision aside.
Reasons of the court
The majority finds that s. 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act sets out the threshold grounds which permit but do not require the court to grant relief when doing judicial review. Binnie writes that "whether or not the court should exercise its discretion in favour of the application will depend on the court's appreciation of the respective roles of the courts and the administration as well as the "circumstances in each case". Fish dissented, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the decision was unreasonable on account of the IAD's emphasis on the specific fact that Khosa denied having engaged in street-racing, and would have granted a re-hearing in the IAD, concluding " I agree that decisions of the IAD are entitled to deference. In my respectful view, however, deference ends where unreasonableness begins."External links
- Full decision on LexUMLexUMLexum is a Canadian legal technologies firm, specializing in legal information management and search. The firm is a spin-off from the Université de Montréal LexUM Laboratory...