This was an admissibility hearing held in late 2017 for misrepresentation. Simply put, the if you get or maintain your permanent residency status by making false representation before Canadian government, you could be deprived of your status, and banned from entering Canada for another five years, pursuant to IRPA section 40:

40 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation
(a) for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act;
(2) The following provisions govern subsection (1):
(a) the permanent resident or the foreign national continues to be inadmissible for misrepresentation for a period of five years following, in the case of a determination outside Canada, a final determination of inadmissibility under subsection (1) …

The interesting thing about this case is that when the applicant Mr. C made his false representation in 2010, the consequence of the misrepresentation was being deprived of the permanent residency status, and being banned from entering Canada for TWO years, instead of FIVE years, according to the law at the time of Mr. C’s “commission” of misrepresentation. Note that I used the word “consequence” rather than words such as “punishment”, “sanction”, “penalty”, etc. I will explain later why these terms matter. Therefore, after the applicant’s counsel concedes Mr. C’s misrepresentation, the next important thing becomes whether Mr. C should be banned for 2 years, as the law at the time of his “commission”, or 5 years, as the law at the time of the ruling of his case.

What makes this legal issue intriguing is the ruling of Supreme Court of Canada of Tran v. Canada made on October 19, 2017 (SCC citation: 2017 SCC 50). To briefly summarize the Tran case, the Appellant Mr. Tran was a permanent resident of Canada who committed a crime when the maximum punishment of his crime was seven years according to the Criminal Code at that time. However, the Criminal Code changed during Mr. Tran’s prosecution procedure by increasing the maximum punishment from seven years to fourteen years. Moreover, the judge from the criminal court gave him a 12-month conditional sentence. So, when this case proceeded into immigration related matter (such as removal from Canada), there came two legal issues.

First, what kind of punishment is the 12-month conditional sentence? Should it be treated the same as the imprisonment, as in the IRPA section 36 (1) (a)

36 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality for
(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, or of an offence under an Act of Parliament for which a term of imprisonment of more than six months has been imposed;

If so, Mr. Tran’s conditional sentence becomes a more serious punishment in the immigration matter, contrary to the original intention of the judge from the criminal court.

Second, in the immigration matter, should Mr. Tran’s maximum term of imprisonment be seven years or fourteen years? The maximum term of imprisonment determines whether Mr. Tran is inadmissible to Canada for serious criminality.

The short answers for the two questions from the Supreme Court of Canada were: 1) No. Conditional sentence should not be interpreted as the “term of imprisonment” under section 36 of IRPA, and 2) the maximum term of imprisonment in IRPA refers to the Criminal Code available at the time of Mr. Tran’s commission.

If we apply the spirit of the ruling of Tran v. Canada made on October 19, 2017 (SCC citation: 2017 SCC 50) to Mr. C’s hearing for misrepresentation, Mr. C should be banned to enter Canada for 2 years, rather than 5 years. Then the next tricky legal issue becomes the applicability of “the maximum term of imprisonment” to the length of inadmissibility period stipulated in IRPA. Different schools of thoughts may have different opinions on this matter. In general, the consequence of misrepresentation in the immigration matter, be it 2-year of 5-year-banning, is regarded as sanction, rather than punishment.

Update in November 2019: More than two years after the Tran case, IRCC finally released its standard answer and saved us time to argue for this matter in the court. You can read about it here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/standard-requirements/tran.html

这是一个2017年年底的案子，是个Admissibility hearing for misrepresentation，还是那个轰动一时的枫叶卡造假案里的其中一个申请人.本来应该是个平淡无奇的案子，结果就在那次庭审的前几天，最高法院刚审了个移民上诉案子，Tran vs. Canada。稍微科普一下，移民案子能打到高院去的几率极低，ID审完上诉到IAD, 然后上诉到Federal Court，然后到Federal Court of Appeal，最后FDA的法官再给你certify question，你就可以到最高法院了，对于有理想的律师，去高院跟九个大法官一起打官司是一种荣耀，输赢无所谓，大部人律师一辈子也没机会去一次高院。高院一年也就审理五六十个案子，因为移民事务在加拿大整个法律体系里不是那么重要，这也是没机会去高院的原因之一。一般来说，移民案子平均一两年才会有一个能到高院去，比如我查了一下，这个Tran v. Canada是今年第一个上到高院的移民案件。

基本案情非常简单，Tran这个人犯了刑事罪，吃了个removal order，犯罪的时候，该罪的法定最高刑是7年，但是在审判的过程中，criminal code改了，这个罪的法定最高刑变成14年了，定罪之后，法官给的刑罚是12 month conditional sentence。因此legal issue就两个：第一. 12 month conditional sentence从移民法角度来看到底是算何种刑罚，因为刑罚的内容决定了这个人是否触犯了移民法里的条款。举例，移民法规定一个移民在加拿大被判刑并判6个月或者以上的监禁，那你会被剥夺移民身份，吃一个removal order。换句话说5个月就不用。那问题就来了要是法官判你6个月，但是3个月之后给了你假释，剩下3个月你在家呆着，但也算服刑，只是在家服刑而已，那怎么办？12 month conditional sentence跟这个问题本质是一样的。不过这是纯刑罚论里的内容，我不写了。

第二，Tran犯罪的时候这个罪最高刑是7年，判决的时候最高刑变14年了，criminal code的改动对移民法的影响是，移民法36条规定了什么样的罪是serious criminality，什么样的罪是criminality，中间那条线就是法定最高刑够不够10年，所以7年变成14年的结果就是这哥们儿犯的罪在移民法看来变成了重罪。问题就是这哥们儿犯罪的时候，criminal code还没改呢，那到底应该按照commit的时间的法律，还是按照判决时候的法律，也就说这是一个法律追溯力的问题（retrospectivity)。

结果，昨天高院的判决是，应该按照犯罪时的法律，否则是不公平的。

所以今天辩护方的律师就援引了昨天高院的判决，因为这人枫叶卡造假是2010年左右的时间，Wang Xun枫叶卡造假案是2015年才被查出来的，但这哥们儿造假至少持续了七八年吧，所有Wang Xun处理的案子都被重新翻了出来，这才翻到了今天这个案子。我入行的时候，Misrep的penalty是吃一个exclusion order然后2年不得入境加拿大，之前更轻，之前是1年不得入境加拿大。但是去年的时候，移民法40条2款a项，也就是关于misrepresentation的penalty的条款又改了，改成5年不得入境了，那按照Tran案子的精神，枫叶卡造假申请时候是2年不得入境，后来才改成5年的，那是不是应该按照之前的标准。

这个适用性问题的争议在于，刑法里的刑罚属于punishment（比如监禁），但移民法里的penalty，联邦法院并不认为这是punishment，而是sanction，这些法律用词都不一样的。给你一年还是两年还是五年不得入境的决定，跟你触犯了刑法然后刑法给你定的罪，两者不一样。

两年后的更新：2019年11月的时候，为了避免我们从业人员在庭上花大量时间争论这个问题，移民局终于公布了他们的原则（作用类似于司法解释），有兴趣的同学可以到这里阅读：https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/standard-requirements/tran.html