Stuart O'Connell Criminal Law Blog

A foreign national convicted in Canada of an indictable offence is inadmissible to Canada on grounds of criminality under s. 36(2)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act . The consequences of inadmissibility for a foreign national are that she is deportable from Canada and is ineligible to become a permanent resident or to apply to enter or remain in Canada unless given an exemption by the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.        See R. v. Moran , 2019 ONCA 217. Immigration and Refuge Protection Act Criminality 36 (2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for (a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by way of indictment, or of two offences under any Act of Parliament not arising out of a single occurrence; (b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two

What an accused says in court is not always believable.  But lack of credibility on the part of the accused does not equate to proof of his or her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A general instruction on reasonable doubt without adverting to its relationship to the credibility (or lack of credibility) of the witnesses leaves open too great a possibility of confusion or misunderstanding.          See R. v. J.H.S ., [2008] 2 SCR 152, at para. 8, Thus, Canada’s highest court propounded the W(D) instruction: what the Court hoped would be a simple, coherent formula to assist juries in understanding and applying the burden and standard of proof in criminal trials where an accused provides exculpatory evidence. While the Supreme Court of Canada never intended the W(D) instruction to be a magical incantation, those who practice criminal law often recite the three-part instruction as though it were.   However, reciting and relying solely on the wording of W(D), without elabor