Latest news with #Section7Charter
Yahoo
29-07-2025
- Yahoo
Sask. judge stays immigration fraud convictions after 'systemic collapse' during border agency investigation
A man found guilty for his role in an immigration fraud scheme has had the charges stayed because a Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) agent working on the case was accused of intimidating witnesses, then allowed to investigate and clear himself. Saskatoon Court of King's Bench Justice Naheed Bardai's 106-page decision, issued on July 23, found that even though it is "quite probable" the allegations of intimidation were false, the self-investigation violated the accused's Section 7 Charter rights to life, liberty, and security of the person. The ruling is the latest in a legal process that began in 2018, when Gurpreet Singh was arrested as part of an investigation by CBSA. Singh would eventually face 12 charges, all of which were related to his preparation of false letters of employment promising foreign nationals jobs as religious workers at Gurdwars, houses of worship for members of the Sikh faith. Bardai oversaw Singh's 2022 trial and convicted Singh on 10 of the 12 charges, but before sentencing could take place, Singh's defence lawyers brought an application for a mistrial. They alleged that the Crown failed to fully disclose information about the CBSA and Crown being accused of intimidating witnesses, and that the nature of the relationship between the Crown and the CBSA resulted in a loss of objectivity and independence. The defence argued this was grounds for the conviction to be revisited, the charges to be stayed, or the trial to be reopened or declared a mistrial. The Crown disagreed, saying Singh received a fair trial. 'Serious lapse of judgement' Bardai found there had been problems with disclosure, but they were inadvertent and didn't affect the outcome of the trial. He also ruled that he not satisfied "that the evidence establishes any sort of actual intimidation." The issue was that Toban Tisdale, the lead CBSA investigator on Singh's case, was accused of intimidating witnesses, then allowed to investigate those allegations himself. "The decision of Officer Toban to involve himself in an investigation that concerned his own behaviour represents a serious lapse in judgment," Bardai wrote in his decision. Bardai said we cannot simply trust the findings of an investigation conducted by the person accused of wrongdoing. "The problems with this sort of abuse of power and self-investigation are obvious," the decision said. "This type of conduct undermines the integrity of the justice system." The judge concluded that "there is now way to turn back the clock to address this problem," since many of the witnesses that testified at the trial had now been tainted by Toban's inquiries about the alleged intimidation. Bardai ruled that he was therefore not prepared to rule on Singh's innocence. Instead, he said this was the "clearest of cases" in which a stay had to be issued. A stay is a "remedy of last resort" and halts the legal process, but doesn't determine guilt or innocence. Tavengwa Runyowa was part of Singh's legal team and agreed the stay was the correct decision. "A police officer and an agency cannot investigate and and exonerate itself for wrongdoing," Runyowa said. 'This was not a single lapse in judgment' Bardai spent part of the decision taking the CBSA to task over allowing Toban to investigate himself. He said the Crown could have stopped Toban, other officers at the CBSA office in Regina could have stepped in, or senior CBSA managers could have directed Toban to remove himself. None chose to do so, Bardai said. "This was not a single lapse in judgment by a single individual. This was a systemic collapse," Bardai wrote. Runyowa said his client is elated about Bardai's decision. He said this is not just a single officer's mistake, but a system that is so dysfunctional that people within it "don't recognize that it is broken." "That should trouble the public, that an organization as large and powerful as the CBSA, which deals with all sorts of issues, national security, border security, immigration enforcement, can have such a faulty and defective structure that it could allow something like this to happen," Runyowa said. The CBSA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
CBC
29-07-2025
- CBC
Sask. judge stays immigration fraud convictions after 'systemic collapse' during border agency investigation
A man found guilty for his role in an immigration fraud scheme has had the charges stayed because a Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) agent working on the case was accused of intimidating witnesses, then allowed to investigate and clear himself. Saskatoon Court of King's Bench Justice Naheed Bardai's 106-page decision, issued on July 23, found that even though it is "quite probable" the allegations of intimidation were false, the self-investigation violated the accused's Section 7 Charter rights to life, liberty, and security of the person. The ruling is the latest in a legal process that began in 2018, when Gurpreet Singh was arrested as part of an investigation by CBSA. Singh would eventually face 12 charges, all of which were related to his preparation of false letters of employment promising foreign nationals jobs as religious workers at Gurdwars, houses of worship for members of the Sikh faith. Bardai oversaw Singh's 2022 trial and convicted Singh on 10 of the 12 charges, but before sentencing could take place, Singh's defence lawyers brought an application for a mistrial. They alleged that the Crown failed to fully disclose information about the CBSA and Crown being accused of intimidating witnesses, and that the nature of the relationship between the Crown and the CBSA resulted in a loss of objectivity and independence. The defence argued this was grounds for the conviction to be revisited, the charges to be stayed, or the trial to be reopened or declared a mistrial. The Crown disagreed, saying Singh received a fair trial. 'Serious lapse of judgement' Bardai found there had been problems with disclosure, but they were inadvertent and didn't affect the outcome of the trial. He also ruled that he not satisfied "that the evidence establishes any sort of actual intimidation." The issue was that Toban Tisdale, the lead CBSA investigator on Singh's case, was accused of intimidating witnesses, then allowed to investigate those allegations himself. "The decision of Officer Toban to involve himself in an investigation that concerned his own behaviour represents a serious lapse in judgment," Bardai wrote in his decision. Bardai said we cannot simply trust the findings of an investigation conducted by the person accused of wrongdoing. "The problems with this sort of abuse of power and self-investigation are obvious," the decision said. "This type of conduct undermines the integrity of the justice system." The judge concluded that "there is now way to turn back the clock to address this problem," since many of the witnesses that testified at the trial had now been tainted by Toban's inquiries about the alleged intimidation. Bardai ruled that he was therefore not prepared to rule on Singh's innocence. Instead, he said this was the "clearest of cases" in which a stay had to be issued. A stay is a "remedy of last resort" and halts the legal process, but doesn't determine guilt or innocence. Tavengwa Runyowa was part of Singh's legal team and agreed the stay was the correct decision. "A police officer and an agency cannot investigate and and exonerate itself for wrongdoing," Runyowa said. 'This was not a single lapse in judgment' Bardai spent part of the decision taking the CBSA to task over allowing Toban to investigate himself. He said the Crown could have stopped Toban, other officers at the CBSA office in Regina could have stepped in, or senior CBSA managers could have directed Toban to remove himself. None chose to do so, Bardai said. "This was not a single lapse in judgment by a single individual. This was a systemic collapse," Bardai wrote. Runyowa said his client is elated about Bardai's decision. He said this is not just a single officer's mistake, but a system that is so dysfunctional that people within it "don't recognize that it is broken." "That should trouble the public, that an organization as large and powerful as the CBSA, which deals with all sorts of issues, national security, border security, immigration enforcement, can have such a faulty and defective structure that it could allow something like this to happen," Runyowa said.
Global News
27-06-2025
- Health
- Global News
Judge grants injunction request blocking Alberta's gender-affirming care legislation
Organizations that advocate for members of the LGBTQ2 community are calling a court injunction preventing the Alberta government from banning gender-affirming treatment for people under 16 'a historic win.' Egale Canada welcomed the decision in a news release on Friday afternoon. Egale along with a group called Skipping Stone and several Alberta families have argued that gender-affirming care legislation introduced in Bill 26 will cause harm. 'As we have long argued, the government should never interfere in the medical decisions of doctors and patients or prevent parents and youth from deciding what medical care is right for them,' Egale Canada said. 'Everyone deserves the ability to access health care and participate fully in their communities. 'We are grateful that the court has acted to protect access to critical medical care.' Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy When she issued the temporary injunction, Justice Allison Kuntz said the legislation raises serious issues that need to addressed in court and that her decision was in order to prevent 'irreparable harm' for young patients until the issues at play are addressed. Story continues below advertisement The organizations filed documents to seek the injunction with the Court of King's Bench of Alberta in late 2024. The LGBTQ2 groups involved in the case had argued that changes to health law violate gender-diverse young people's Section 7 Charter right to security of the person, their Section 12 right to be free from cruel and unusual treatment and their Section 15 right to equality. They also argued it violates the Alberta Bill of Rights. Bill 26 is one of three pieces of legislation affecting transgender people passed by Alberta's United Conservative government in the fall. –with files from The Canadian Press' Lisa Johnson
National Post
03-05-2025
- Politics
- National Post
Adam Zivo: When unelected judges invent rights to bike lanes and drug dens, something's wrong
On Wednesday, Ontario Premier Doug Ford claimed that Canada's politically appointed judiciary is overstepping its authority and that judges should be elected so that they are more responsive to the will of the people. His criticisms are absolutely warranted: judicial activism has run amok, causing demonstrable harms. Article content Article content Ford's comments were prompted by a recent legal battle over a law, Bill 212, that his government passed last November, to forcibly remove bike lanes on three major Toronto streets. Article content Article content Biking activists sued the province in December, arguing that the law violates cyclists' Section 7 Charter rights ('the right to life, liberty and security of the person'), and sought a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement until their case could be fully adjudicated in court. Article content Article content There is a clear test for granting such injunctions: (1) the request must concern a serious issue; (2) the applicant must experience 'irreparable harm' if the injunction is not granted; and (3) the benefits of the injunction must not outweigh any harm it causes to the public interest (this is known as the 'balance of convenience'). Article content When the Supreme Court established this test, though, it emphasized that there is a strong public interest in respecting the authority of the legislative and executive branches of government. Article content Nullifying duly enacted laws erodes the separation of powers, so, ideally, this should only be done after a full hearing, especially if constitutional matters are involved. Overruling Parliament via preliminary injunctions is supposed to be reserved for 'clear cases.' Article content Article content Likewise, when determining a balance of convenience, judges are supposed to assume that duly enacted laws serve the public interest as intended. If this is not actually the case, that is only to be recognized in the final ruling. Article content Article content With Bill 212, an Ontario Superior Court judge, Stephen E. Firestone, initially ruled that the activists had not met the 'heavy burden' of demonstrating that sufficient harms or 'a compelling overall public interest rationale' justified nullifying the provincial legislature's authority. Article content He argued that, while removing bike lanes may irreparably harm some cyclists, 'this is not a case where the applicants have no viable alternative means of transportation,' and that biking is a voluntary choice for the vast majority of people. Article content 'The courts' role on this interlocutory motion is not to second-guess the wisdom of the policy or to question whether it really serves the public interest. It is assumed to do so,' emphasized Firestone, correctly.
