Court finds citizenship revocation process unfair

The Federal Court has struck down several sections of the Citizenship Act relating to how the government may revoke someone’s citizenship.  In a decision Justice Jocelyne Gagné said the provisions in question, which don’t violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, do violate Canada’s Bill of Rights “in a way that can not be avoided by interpretation.”

She noted that citizenship revocation is an important decision that bars applicants from re-applying for 10 years while some could even be rendered stateless. “Given the importance of Canadian citizenship and the severe consequences that could result from its loss, the principles of fundamental justice require a discretionary review of all the circumstances of the case,” wrote  Justice Jocelyne Gagné.

Among those circumstances, “is a consideration of humanitarian and compassionate grounds,” she said.

Gagné then ruled three sections of the previous government’s Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act (SCCA) inoperative.

That means going forward, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will no longer have the power to decide on their own, to revoke someone’s citizenship if they feel it was obtained by lying or concealing information. It also overturns part of the law that allowed the government to revoke someone’s citizenship without a hearing.

Immigration lawyer Lorne Waldman who represented the petitioners told a leading TV channel,  “We didn’t understand why the current government would continue to use and support the current revocation process when all of the stakeholders were arguing it was an unfair process. But they did. So they forced us to go to court and now today the court decision is vindication of our position that this is not a fair process,

In her ruling, Gagné also declared all eight of the notices or decisions to revoke citizenship null and void.

As for subsections 10 (1), (3) and (4) while the judge declared them inoperative because they violate the Bill of Rights, she did not find they violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As such, the judge suspended her judgment for 60 days to give the government time to decide if it wants to file an appeal.

Those provisions drew a great deal of attention last fall when the Status of Women Minister Maryam Monsef was informed that she had been born in Iran, not Afghanistan as she had been told by her mother. Such grounds would conceivably have been enough for Monsef to lose her Canadian citizenship under the current law.

Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen’s office is reported to have said that  the government will review the decision, noting that the court has provided an opportunity for appeal.