Can Canada’s Cannabis Act Trigger Criminal Inadmissibility Under IRPA s. 36 in Canadian Immigration?

Many people assume that because cannabis is legal in Canada, cannabis-related records do not matter at the border. In reality, cannabis offences can still lead to criminal inadmissibility because they can be offences under an Act of Parliament (federal law), which is exactly what IRPA s. 36 addresses.
 Source: IRPA s. 36  

1) Why “Act of Parliament” matters

IRPA s. 36 refers to convictions under an “Act of Parliament”, meaning federal Canadian laws (not provincial statutes). If a person is convicted of a federal cannabis offence, that conviction may be assessed for criminal inadmissibility under IRPA s. 36.
 Source: IRPA s. 36  

2) The Cannabis Act is federal—and it creates offences

Canada’s Cannabis Act is a federal statute that sets out a legal framework for cannabis and also creates offences related to prohibited conduct (for example, unlawful distribution/sale and other prohibited activities).
 Source: Cannabis Act (Justice Laws)  

Practical point: Legal personal use within Canada’s rules is not a crime. But Cannabis Act offences are still criminal offences, and convictions can still matter for inadmissibility analysis under IRPA.
 Source: IRPA s. 36  

3) How a federal cannabis conviction can be assessed under IRPA s. 36

A federal cannabis conviction can be assessed under:

●       Serious criminality (IRPA s. 36(1)) for permanent residents or foreign nationals where the offence meets the serious-criminality thresholds, and/or

●       Ordinary criminality (IRPA s. 36(2)) for foreign nationals, where the offence meets the criminality thresholds.

Source: IRPA s. 36  

4) U.S. marijuana convictions: legalization does not automatically remove the issue

Even if cannabis is legal in Canada today, a U.S. marijuana conviction can still affect admissibility. Officers generally assess foreign convictions by asking:

●       What is the closest Canadian equivalent offence?

●       Does it meet the thresholds in IRPA s. 36?

Source: IRPA s. 36  

Because Canadian law changed in 2018, timing and the specific offence details matter. The offence date, the statute section, and the court records are often decisive in equivalency and inadmissibility analysis.
 Source: Cannabis Act (SC 2018, c. 16)  

5) What cannabis issues most commonly create risk (general)

Inadmissibility risk is usually higher where the conduct involves:

●       sale / distribution / trafficking-type allegations

●       import/export or cross-border movement

●       conduct outside Canada’s legal framework

Source: Cannabis Act (offences framework)  

6) Documents that usually matter most (especially U.S. records)

To assess inadmissibility properly, it’s common to need:

●       the exact statute/section and wording

●       charging document (complaint/information/indictment)

●       disposition/judgment

●       sentence order and proof all terms were completed

●       any appeal outcome or expungement/pardon order (if applicable)

Source (inadmissibility overview)