Bundhel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1147 : Misrepresentation Finding Upheld Because Applicant Failed to Disclose Previous Criminal Charges

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a temporary work permit after the applicant was found inadmissible for misrepresentation.

The Court upheld the decision because the applicant had answered “no” to a clear question asking whether he had ever been arrested or charged with a criminal offence, despite having previously faced two criminal charges in India.

Key Principle

Applicants for Canadian immigration documents have a duty to provide truthful and complete information.

A later explanation that an omission was a clerical error will not necessarily overcome a finding of misrepresentation where the question was clear and the applicant knew the relevant facts.

Correcting or admitting an omission only after the officer discovers or confronts the applicant about it is also different from voluntarily correcting an error before it is discovered.

Background

The applicant was an actor who applied for a temporary work permit to come to Canada to work on a movie production.

His application asked whether he had ever committed, been arrested for, been charged with or convicted of a criminal offence in any country.

The applicant answered “no.” However, he had previously been arrested and charged in India in connection with a reckless driving matter and a separate matter involving harbouring a fugitive accused of murder.

Although his convictions were subsequently overturned on appeal, the fact remained that he had been arrested and charged.

When the officer confronted him about the discrepancy, the applicant explained that the omission was a “clerical mistake” and that he believed the charges did not need to be disclosed because he had ultimately been acquitted.

The officer rejected the explanation and found him inadmissible for misrepresentation under section 40 of the IRPA.

Court Findings

The Federal Court found that the officer reasonably concluded that the applicant had deliberately withheld material information.

The question on the application was clear and expressly asked about arrests and charges, not merely convictions. The applicant therefore could not reasonably argue that his eventual acquittals meant the information did not need to be disclosed.

The Court also rejected the argument that the applicant’s later admission should have been treated as a mitigating factor. He disclosed the information only after the officer confronted him with discrepancy.

The Court distinguished this from a situation where an applicant voluntarily corrects an error before it is discovered or where the correct information is already contained elsewhere in the application. In such circumstances, the evidence may support an innocent mistake. That was not the situation here.

The Court emphasized the importance of complete and truthful disclosure in the immigration system. The applicant’s failure to disclose his arrests and charges could have affected the officer’s assessment of his admissibility.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the finding of misrepresentation and the refusal of the work permit.

Case Citation:

Bundhel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1147 CanLII