Judge acts very ignorant

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Yes, what we call "the preponderance of the evidence," i.e., 50% and a smidge.

Try to get this through your head: the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt," which you seem to have confused with the presumption of innocence, applies in criminal cases. That means if you are being tried for a crime, under threat of fine or imprisonment. The fact that some conduct is a both a crime and grounds for deportation is irrelevant. If the government is trying to deport you, it needs only demonstrate your conduct by balance of probabilities. If it is trying to imprison you for the same conduct, it needs to demonstrate that beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's the same in civil cases. O.J. Simpson was acquitted of killing Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman in the criminal case, but found to be responsible for their deaths in the civil case, because the standards of evidence are different.

The balance of probabilities required of an immigration violation can also undermine a criminal case.

In my friend's case, the police were investigating human trafficking but because she was a foreign national, the police apoear to have abandoned the criminal case, charged her with an immigration violation, and then investigated next to nothing.

One might say that since the judge ruled in her favour, where's the problem?

The problem is she could have been a human trafficker, a money launderer, an innocent witness to a crime, a victim of a crime, or anything else. In that particular case, the balance of probabilities required of an immigration charge appears to have seriously undermined proof beyond a reasonable doubt required of a criminal investigation and so put public safety at risk.

A human trafficking victim would be particularly vulnerable to sexual assault.

Legally we can deport you just because we don't want you here. There is no absolute right to enter Canada or to remain here unless you are a Canadian citizen. The permission to enter can be revoked at any time for no specific reason and it is the onus of the visitor to convince a judge they should be allowed to stay. Admittedly most judges will not deport unless there is a reason but legally you have to go if permission is revoked.

Legally, that's false. Any person, foreign nationals included, can challenge an officer's decision.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,522
9,608
113
Washington DC
The balance of probabilities required of an immigration violation can also undermine a criminal case.
No it can't, but thanks for playing.

In my friend's case, the police were investigating human trafficking but because she was a foreign national, the police apoear to have abandoned the criminal case, charged her with an immigration violation, and then investigated next to nothing.
Probably because they felt they wouldn't be able to meet the criminal evidence standard.

One might say that since the judge ruled in her favour, where's the problem?

The problem is she could have been a human trafficker, a money launderer, an innocent witness to a crime, a victim of a crime, or anything else. In that particular case, the balance of probabilities required of an immigration charge appears to have seriously undermined proof beyond a reasonable doubt required of a criminal investigation and so put public safety at risk.

A human trafficking victim would be particularly vulnerable to sexual assault.
Now it sounds like you're complaining about law enforcement. You really need to narrow down exactly what your beef is (aside from disapproving of sex outside of marriage).
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
No it can't, but thanks for playing.


Probably because they felt they wouldn't be able to meet the criminal evidence standard.


Now it sounds like you're complaining about law enforcement. You really need to narrow down exactly what your beef is (aside from disapproving of sex outside of marriage).

I guess if law enforcement did its job, then fewer cases would go to court since they'd collect the evidence before and not after charging someone.

And if it's a criminal investigation, it's pretty shameful that they then can't even prove a person's guilt on a balance of probabilities.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
The balance of probabilities required of an immigration violation can also undermine a criminal case.

In my friend's case, the police were investigating human trafficking but because she was a foreign national, the police apoear to have abandoned the criminal case, charged her with an immigration violation, and then investigated next to nothing.

One might say that since the judge ruled in her favour, where's the problem?

The problem is she could have been a human trafficker, a money launderer, an innocent witness to a crime, a victim of a crime, or anything else. In that particular case, the balance of probabilities required of an immigration charge appears to have seriously undermined proof beyond a reasonable doubt required of a criminal investigation and so put public safety at risk.

A human trafficking victim would be particularly vulnerable to sexual assault.
We know you think your friend got shafted and so you have a personal axe to grind. We are not going to change all our laws and allow a more intrusive police state to rectify the mistake though, if it was truly a mistake. Get over it. The system isn't perfect but it's far better than the alternative you propose. Was she involved in human trafficking? I'm starting to think maybe she was. I mean really you are making such a big deal over this. The changes you put forth actually empower authorities to be more corrupt and violate more people's rights.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
We know you think your friend got shafted and so you have a personal axe to grind. We are not going to change all our laws and allow a more intrusive police state to rectify the mistake though, if it was truly a mistake. Get over it. The system isn't perfect but it's far better than the alternative you propose. Was she involved in human trafficking? I'm starting to think maybe she was. I mean really you are making such a big deal over this. The changes you put forth actually empower authorities to be more corrupt and violate more people's rights.

That's the whole point.

Though the police report claimed to be investigating human trafficking, the police appear to have never even suspected her of working as a human trafficker. It turned out that an acquaintance who'd invited her for lunch for her birthday was working in Canada without a visa or so it appears. However, the police jumped to the conclusion my friend was guilty too without investigating. She could hypothetically have been guilty of far worse.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
That's the whole point.
What is? Passing intrusive, police state laws that promote corruption and violation of rights? That's a strange point to support.
Though the police report claimed to be investigating human trafficking, the police appear to have never even suspected her of working as a human trafficker. It turned out that an acquaintance who'd invited her for lunch for her birthday was working in Canada without a visa or so it appears. However, the police jumped to the conclusion my friend was guilty too without investigating. She could hypothetically have been guilty of far worse.
Hmm, guilty by association. That is actually a valid reason for concern. If she is friends with and associating with a know illegal alien then one can infer she herself will also overstay her allowed visit or work without a visa. Sounds like a darn good reason to ship her out of the country. Why take chances...
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
What is? Passing intrusive, police state laws that promote corruption and violation of rights? That's a strange point to support.

Hmm, guilty by association. That is actually a valid reason for concern. If she is friends with and associating with a know illegal alien then one can infer she herself will also overstay her allowed visit or work without a visa. Sounds like a darn good reason to ship her out of the country. Why take chances...

But it was a claimed human trafficking investigation. My friend could hypothetically have been a human trafficker. Even she was shocked and disappointed that they'd never investigated.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
But it was a claimed human trafficking investigation. My friend could hypothetically have been a human trafficker. Even she was shocked and disappointed that they'd never investigated.

So what if she was. They believed that to evict her from Canada was enough of a solution and easier than going through a criminal investigation and trial. This is not uncommon. Many instances of foreigners being deported instead of charged criminally exist because it is a much cheaper and easier solution. Given the fact her friend was illegally working and possibly involved in human trafficking I would say she should just take the order to leave and count herself lucky she didn't have to defend herself in a prolonged criminal trial during which time it is likely she would have been denied bail. Sometimes you have to pick your battles.

FYI - CBSA can summarily issue a 1 year exclusion order. Immigration can exclude permanently so if immigration wins their appeal they can exclude her from 1 year to permanently. Also CBSA can use a previous exclusion as a valid reason to refuse entry. Honestly she should have voluntarily left if she ever wanted to return. All she has done is create a permanent record that can now be used to refuse entry forever.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
An exclusion order is good for only one year. Had she been a human trafficker, that would have been a damn sweet deal.

By fighting and winning her case, she clears her record.

An exclusion order was just for one year. Had she been guilty of human trafficking, that would have been a damn sweet deal.

Plus by fighting and winning, she clears her record and gives the CBSA a bad precedent for future cases.

They asked for a mere one-year Exclusion order. Had she been a human trafficker, that would have been a damn sweet deal.

And by winning, she cleats her record and sets a bad precedent for the CBSA. How does the CBSA benefit from this and how does this contribute to public safety if she can just return after a year even if the CBSA had won?
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
An exclusion order is good for only one year. Had she been a human trafficker, that would have been a damn sweet deal.

By fighting and winning her case, she clears her record.

An exclusion order was just for one year. Had she been guilty of human trafficking, that would have been a damn sweet deal.

Plus by fighting and winning, she clears her record and gives the CBSA a bad precedent for future cases.

They asked for a mere one-year Exclusion order. Had she been a human trafficker, that would have been a damn sweet deal.

And by winning, she cleats her record and sets a bad precedent for the CBSA. How does the CBSA benefit from this and how does this contribute to public safety if she can just return after a year even if the CBSA had won?

So worked up you keep repeating yourself? t still doesn't make it true. Ill type slowly so you can follow along...

CBSA can issue a 1 year exclusion summarily. The record of that order can be used forever to deny entry essentially creating a permanent exclusion. Did you get that bit...pretty cool eh? That 1 year exclusion maybe isn't such a sweet deal after all.

An immigration hearing is a different thing and is done by...wait for it...Citizenship and Immigration Canada (note that is not CBSA) and the judge can issue anything from a 1 year exclusion to a permanent ban and also a fine or imprisonment prior to deportation. Neat huh...the judge has a lot more power than the CBSA officer...who would have imagined that?

Now here is where you may get really confused...there is a permanent record of the hearing (including the reason and the outcome) logged in the CBSA computer and this can be used as a reason for denial of entry forever so even if she has 'won' she has lost because the record is there and it can be used against her. Asking for a hearing, even though she won, maybe wasn't such a good deal either it would seem.

Now if she had been given the option to voluntarily leave and/or cancel her visa and she had chosen that option there would be no record of an exclusion and no record of a hearing and she could have theoretically re-entered Canada the next day without an issue.
My guess is they did not offer this option because CBSA has determined she is undesirable and wanted that record logged into the system probably with some notes attached instructing officers to deny entry in the future.

In the end I highly doubt she will ever get back into Canada other than for the appeal hearing which resolves all of Canada's problems with her. It also means we didn't spend a fortune on investigating or having a criminal trial or holding her in jail. BTW if there was a trial the charges would be logged into the CBSA system and could be used to exclude her on all future attempts to enter.

Are you getting the idea yet? She is now in the system and that record can be used to deny entry forever.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
So worked up you keep repeating yourself? t still doesn't make it true. Ill type slowly so you can follow along...

CBSA can issue a 1 year exclusion summarily. The record of that order can be used forever to deny entry essentially creating a permanent exclusion. Did you get that bit...pretty cool eh? That 1 year exclusion maybe isn't such a sweet deal after all.

An immigration hearing is a different thing and is done by...wait for it...Citizenship and Immigration Canada (note that is not CBSA) and the judge can issue anything from a 1 year exclusion to a permanent ban and also a fine or imprisonment prior to deportation. Neat huh...the judge has a lot more power than the CBSA officer...who would have imagined that?

Now here is where you may get really confused...there is a permanent record of the hearing (including the reason and the outcome) logged in the CBSA computer and this can be used as a reason for denial of entry forever so even if she has 'won' she has lost because the record is there and it can be used against her. Asking for a hearing, even though she won, maybe wasn't such a good deal either it would seem.

Now if she had been given the option to voluntarily leave and/or cancel her visa and she had chosen that option there would be no record of an exclusion and no record of a hearing and she could have theoretically re-entered Canada the next day without an issue.
My guess is they did not offer this option because CBSA has determined she is undesirable and wanted that record logged into the system probably with some notes attached instructing officers to deny entry in the future.

In the end I highly doubt she will ever get back into Canada other than for the appeal hearing which resolves all of Canada's problems with her. It also means we didn't spend a fortune on investigating or having a criminal trial or holding her in jail. BTW if there was a trial the charges would be logged into the CBSA system and could be used to exclude her on all future attempts to enter.

Are you getting the idea yet? She is now in the system and that record can be used to deny entry forever.

False. Her husband had told me that when they'd returned, he'd informed the border agent of the appeal hearing. The officer grilled him with 1001 questions on it, and finally let them through.

The next day, he'd sent the CBSA an e-mail to complain about the CBSA officer wasting his time and making redundant work for himself by asking all those questions when he'd have to verify everything in the system anyway.

He got a return e-mail to arrange a time for a phone call and a representative called him him to investigate.

That's when the person clarified the myth that border agents have an all-knowing system. All the officer would have seen about my friend in the database would have been that she faced a pending appeal hearing. It would not have indicated the charge or even any ruling in my friend's favour. I presume that after the appeal is over, that will be deleted too.

On the one hand, rightfully so so as to avoid CBSA officers thinking themselves above the law.

On the other hand, that's precisely why the police should have collected more evidence before charging her.

Sure the evidence collected after the charge and presented at the hearing showed her to be innocent on a balance of probabilities of having worked in Canada. However, had the police investigated before charging her, they could have discovered not only her innocence of the suspicion against her but of any other crime or immigration violation of which she could have been guilty and of which they did not suspect her, whether she could have been an innocent witness to a crime and could have helped police, or been an innocent victim of a crime.

So again, I agree with removing a ruling in favour of an accused from the database. But then again, that's why it's so important to collect evidence beforehand. She was intercepted in the course of a human trafficking investigation. That was a good reason to investigate her, but the police never did that.

Now though she is innocent of human trafficking, that's just luck. The police never investigated and so did not know she was innocent of human trafficking. The police had erroneously presumed her innocent of human trafficking. And no, there is no contradiction there. That she was innocent did not excuse the police from presuming her innocent under the circumstances. They did not know she was innocent and so should have investigated.

The worst part is telegraphing their ignorance. In the hypothetical scenario that she had been guilty of human traficking, the charge of working in Canada without a visa would have revealed to her that the police truly were clueless.

Perhaps his past should come under a microscope as he is probably a sex offender of some sort.

Who? The judge in the OP?

Unless there is something else that the OP doesn't mention, I see nothing in the OP to lead one to believe he's a sex offender. Of course he could be. Anyone could be. But I see no indication i n the OP to raise the probability for him here. It seems more a case of ignorance on his part.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
False. Her husband had told me that when they'd returned, he'd informed the border agent of the appeal hearing. The officer grilled him with 1001 questions on it, and finally let them through.

The next day, he'd sent the CBSA an e-mail to complain about the CBSA officer wasting his time and making redundant work for himself by asking all those questions when he'd have to verify everything in the system anyway.

He got a return e-mail to arrange a time for a phone call and a representative called him him to investigate.

That's when the person clarified the myth that border agents have an all-knowing system. All the officer would have seen about my friend in the database would have been that she faced a pending appeal hearing. It would not have indicated the charge or even any ruling in my friend's favour. I presume that after the appeal is over, that will be deleted too.

On the one hand, rightfully so so as to avoid CBSA officers thinking themselves above the law.

On the other hand, that's precisely why the police should have collected more evidence before charging her.

Sure the evidence collected after the charge and presented at the hearing showed her to be innocent on a balance of probabilities of having worked in Canada. However, had the police investigated before charging her, they could have discovered not only her innocence of the suspicion against her but of any other crime or immigration violation of which she could have been guilty and of which they did not suspect her, whether she could have been an innocent witness to a crime and could have helped police, or been an innocent victim of a crime.

So again, I agree with removing a ruling in favour of an accused from the database. But then again, that's why it's so important to collect evidence beforehand. She was intercepted in the course of a human trafficking investigation. That was a good reason to investigate her, but the police never did that.

Now though she is innocent of human trafficking, that's just luck. The police never investigated and so did not know she was innocent of human trafficking. The police had erroneously presumed her innocent of human trafficking. And no, there is no contradiction there. That she was innocent did not excuse the police from presuming her innocent under the circumstances. They did not know she was innocent and so should have investigated.

The worst part is telegraphing their ignorance. In the hypothetical scenario that she had been guilty of human traficking, the charge of working in Canada without a visa would have revealed to her that the police truly were clueless.
You're clueless. They have access to multiple databases from within Canada and the US. They can find out in minutes if you have registered weapons, criminal history (not just convictions but any charges), drivers license and vehicle registrations. They even know if you have a fishing or hunting license. Do you really believe they cannot see details of immigration hearings? Hearings from within their own agency that have a direct bearing on admissibility?


Who? The judge in the OP?
No, you
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
You're clueless. They have access to multiple databases from within Canada and the US. They can find out in minutes if you have registered weapons, criminal history (not just convictions but any charges), drivers license and vehicle registrations. They even know if you have a fishing or hunting license. Do you really believe they cannot see details of immigration hearings? Hearings from within their own agency that have a direct bearing on admissibility?



No, you


I though the same as you do. It turned out I was wrong. I have no doubt they can see at least Canadian and US crime convictions for which one has not been pardoned. Pardoned convictions, I don't know. Interpol, probably. But why would they see anything in a dtabase for a hearing for which the CBSA lost?

I had incorrectly assumed that detailed information would remain in the database until at least after the appeal hearing.

It turns out that, no, because the ruling was in favour of my friend, that was deleted. However, because there was still a pending appeal by the CBSA, the appeal appeared in the system, but not in detail, just that there was an IRB appeal.

I get why you would believe so much information would be in the system. I thought the same. Turns out I was wrong, and informed of it from a first-hand witness.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
I though the same as you do. It turned out I was wrong. I have no doubt they can see at least Canadian and US crime convictions for which one has not been pardoned. Pardoned convictions, I don't know. Interpol, probably. But why would they see anything in a dtabase for a hearing for which the CBSA lost?

I had incorrectly assumed that detailed information would remain in the database until at least after the appeal hearing.

It turns out that, no, because the ruling was in favour of my friend, that was deleted. However, because there was still a pending appeal by the CBSA, the appeal appeared in the system, but not in detail, just that there was an IRB appeal.

I get why you would believe so much information would be in the system. I thought the same. Turns out I was wrong, and informed of it from a first-hand witness.

I only have about 20 personal friends in CBSA. I do not doubt your friend was told the info is deleted but it isn't. These agencies do not have to tell you the truth.

There isn't going to be a transcript in their system but it will show there was a hearing and for what reason and the outcome. The outcome and reason do not really matter, just the fact a hearing was held is enough for them to deny entry in the future. They can also flag your friend so she gets refused forever. But hey, I know nothing, your friends phone call trumps my personal knowledge.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I only have about 20 personal friends in CBSA. I do not doubt your friend was told the info is deleted but it isn't. These agencies do not have to tell you the truth.

There isn't going to be a transcript in their system but it will show there was a hearing and for what reason and the outcome. The outcome and reason do not really matter, just the fact a hearing was held is enough for them to deny entry in the future. They can also flag your friend so she gets refused forever. But hey, I know nothing, your friends phone call trumps my personal knowledge.

Now, supposing what you say is true, and the officer lied to her husband about what was actually in the system, then what's the point of an IRB hearing? That appears to be the same kind of attitude that had caused the local CBSA to return her passport until her counsel warned of legal consequences if they didn't.

That said, I could see the following scenario. Totally corrupt and illegal, but possible. Each time she enters Canada, they'll give her a choice between leaving and appealing, meaning that each time she comes to Canada, she'd have to get a lawyer, fight the deceision, and win since the decision would have been based on a hearing she had won.

Eventually, the database would be loaded with denials of entry, appeals, and rulings in her favour.

Needless to say, at one point or another, the IRB will trust CBSA statements less and less, even when their claims are genuine.

I doubt very much the CBSA wants to develop that kind of precedent and reputation before the IRB.

Another possibility I could see if what you claim is true, is that each time she returns to Canada, maybe for the rest of her life, she'll have to go through baggage check and questionning.

The officer might let her in to not cause problems for himself, especially if he knows she's got a Canadian lawyer on dial. But he'll still make sure each and every time she comes to Canada she'll have to go through security screening, which can be a form of harassment in its own right. In fact I've heard that that does happen if for example, you make a false customs declaration even once, even if you're a Canadian citizen, you'll probably end u going through security check for the rest of your life each and every time you return to Canada.

Now of couse if you made a false declaration, you kind of asked for it.

But otherwise, if you win a judgement against a false accusation, then it's just harassment, but difficult to prove.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Now, supposing what you say is true, and the officer lied to her husband about what was actually in the system, then what's the point of an IRB hearing? That appears to be the same kind of attitude that had caused the local CBSA to return her passport until her counsel warned of legal consequences if they didn't.

That said, I could see the following scenario. Totally corrupt and illegal, but possible. Each time she enters Canada, they'll give her a choice between leaving and appealing, meaning that each time she comes to Canada, she'd have to get a lawyer, fight the deceision, and win since the decision would have been based on a hearing she had won.

Eventually, the database would be loaded with denials of entry, appeals, and rulings in her favour.

Needless to say, at one point or another, the IRB will trust CBSA statements less and less, even when their claims are genuine.

I doubt very much the CBSA wants to develop that kind of precedent and reputation before the IRB.

Another possibility I could see if what you claim is true, is that each time she returns to Canada, maybe for the rest of her life, she'll have to go through baggage check and questionning.

The officer might let her in to not cause problems for himself, especially if he knows she's got a Canadian lawyer on dial. But he'll still make sure each and every time she comes to Canada she'll have to go through security screening, which can be a form of harassment in its own right. In fact I've heard that that does happen if for example, you make a false customs declaration even once, even if you're a Canadian citizen, you'll probably end u going through security check for the rest of your life each and every time you return to Canada.

Now of couse if you made a false declaration, you kind of asked for it.

But otherwise, if you win a judgement against a false accusation, then it's just harassment, but difficult to prove.
You're starting to get the idea. They can refuse entry for almost anything. No funds to support yourself. Likelihood you will work illegally. They smelled pot on your clothing. An undeclared apple in the car. The list is endless and it will make her life miserable.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
You're starting to get the idea. They can refuse entry for almost anything. No funds to support yourself. Likelihood you will work illegally. They smelled pot on your clothing. An undeclared apple in the car. The list is endless and it will make her life miserable.

If that information stays in the system, you're right, they could do that. But then she just needs to show sufficient funds, dot her is's cross her t's, always declare everything, give no reason to even suspect anything.

However, if they do that motivated by an appeal that they lost, what's the difference between them and vigilante thugs?

Doesn't change anything in practical terms of course, but I guess it just shows how, if indeed it stays in the system and they do that, then we might as well scrap the IRB and tell te CBSA if he doesn't like the way a person looks, he can tell him to f off out of Canada.