Cross v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-1634-95
Pinard J.
2/5/96
6 pp.
Immigration-Application for judicial review of Immigration Investigations Officer's decision to arrest applicant at Vancouver Pre-Trial Detention Centre pursuant to Immigration Act, s. 103(2) and to remove him to Canada-U.S. border, turning him over to American authorities there-In 1992, applicant, American citizen, pleaded guilty to simple assault misdemeanor in Vermont-Entered Canada in 1995 after failing to complete probation and two weeks of remainder of sentence-Shortly thereafter, U.S. law enforcement officials informed Investigations Officer applicant wanted for escaping lawful custody and, in confidence, that applicant prime suspect in rape-murder in Vermont, and considered armed and dangerous-Applicant arrested and held for inquiry into conviction in Vermont-At first inquiry in June 1995, Adjudicator dismissed allegations as unfounded-Applicant re-arrested and, at second inquiry, conceded Vermont conviction equivalent to simple assault in Canada pursuant to Criminal Code, s. 266, departure order issued and applicant ordered released from custody on terms and conditions-When departure order issued, Investigations Officer, conscious applicant would have to be brought before Adjudicator within 48 hours and would likely be released from detention once again, re-arrested applicant who had not yet been released from custody and drove applicant to border and turned him over to U.S. Border Patrol-Application dismissed as basic issue moot and not justiciable as circumstances following from impugned decision no longer existing-Well established declaration will not normally be granted when dispute over and has become academic or when will serve no purpose-In Borowsky v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342, Supreme Court defined three criteria for exercise of discretion to hear matter notwithstanding mootness: existence of adversarial context, concern for judicial economy and need for court to demonstrate measure of awareness of proper law-making function-Herein, in June 1985, applicant released from custody of Canadian authorities and certificate of departure issued to applicant upon departure from Canada-Accordingly, in June 1995, applicant no longer under arrest by Canadian authorities and no longer in Canada-Further, applicant's removal from Canada in no way altered his legal standing within Canada-No live controversy remaining in matter-Concern for judicial economy and traditional role of court warranting exercise of discretion denying hearing of moot case-Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, s. 103(2) (as am. by S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 94).