Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Peer v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date 2011-03-09
Neutral citation 2011 FCA 91
File numbers A-267-10

Decision Content

Federal Court of Appeal

 

Cour d'appel fédérale

Date: 20110309

Docket: A-267-10

Citation: 2011 FCA 91

 

CORAM:       BLAIS C.J.

                        SHARLOW J.A.                   

                        STRATAS J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

DANISH HAROON PEER

Appellant

 

and

 

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

 

Respondent

 

 

 

Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on March 9, 2011.

Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on March 9, 2011.

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:                                                BLAIS C.J.

 

Federal Court of Appeal

 

Cour d'appel fédérale

Date: 20110309

Docket: A-267-10

Citation: 2011 FCA 91

 

CORAM:       BLAIS C.J.

                        SHARLOW J.A.                   

                        STRATAS J.A.

 

BETWEEN:

DANISH HAROON PEER

Appellant

 

and

 

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

 

Respondent

 

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on March 9, 2011)

 

BLAIS C.J.

[1]               Despite the able submissions of counsel for the Appellant, we have not been persuaded that Justice Zinn erred in his interpretation of the word “espionage” in subsection 34(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. On the contrary, we agree with his decision, substantially for the reasons he gave.

 

[2]               The certified question is:

Is a person inadmissible to Canada for “engaging in an act of espionage … against a democratic government, institution or process” within the meaning of subsection section 34(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, if the person’s activities consist of intelligence gathering activities that are legal in the country where they take place, do not violate international law and where there is no evidence of hostile intent against the persons who are being observed?

 

[3]               We would answer yes to this question.

 

[4]               Counsel conceded that, given that answer, there is no basis for appellate intervention.

 

[5]               The appeal will be dismissed.

                                                                                                                              

“Pierre Blais”

Chief Justice

 

 

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

 

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

DOCKET:                                                                              A-267-10

 

(APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ZINN, DATED JULY 19, 2010, IN FEDERAL COURT FILE NO. IMM-5147-09)

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                              DANISH HAROON PEER v.

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

 

PLACE OF HEARING:                                                        Toronto, Ontario

 

 

DATE OF HEARING:                                                          March 9, 2011

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE COURT BY:                                                           (BLAIS C.J., SHARLOW & STRATAS JJ.A.)

 

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:                            BLAIS C.J.

 

APPEARANCES:

 

Jacqueline Swaisland

FOR THE APPELLANT

 

 

Ladan Shahrooz

Hillary Stephenson

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

Waldman & Associates

FOR THE APPELLANT

 

Myles J. Kirvan

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

 

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.