Peer v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
The court held that intelligence‑gathering activities directed against a democratic government, institution or process fall within the meaning of "espionage" in s.34(1)(a) of the IRPA even if those activities are lawful in the jurisdiction where they occur, do not violate international law and there is no evidence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2011 FCA 91
- Parties
- Appellant: Danish Haroon Peer; Respondent: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 9 March 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Immigration Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal; Judgment Delivered
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Inadmissibility, Espionage, Statutory Interpretation, Section 34(1)(a) IRPA
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Danish Haroon Peer
Appellant
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Immigration Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal; Judgment Delivered
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether intelligence‑gathering activities that are lawful where conducted, that do not violate international law and for which there is no evidence of hostile intent constitute "espionage" under s.34(1)(a) of the IRPA
- 2 Whether appellate intervention was warranted in the interpretation of "espionage" applied by the Federal Court judge
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that intelligence‑gathering activities directed against a democratic government, institution or process fall within the meaning of "espionage" in s.34(1)(a) of the IRPA even if those activities are lawful in the jurisdiction where they occur, do not violate international law and there is no evidence of hostile intent; accordingly, the appellant was properly found inadmissible and the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
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