The Latest Immigration Court Decisions
Sidhu v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
Decider: Yves de Montigny J.
Court: Federal Court
Citation: 2010 FC 911
Judgement: September 13, 2010
 Finally, the Applicant submitted that his right to know the case against him was breached, because was he not informed as to what evidence would be sufficient to dispel the view that the seized currency was illegally obtained. I find this argument devoid of merit. The correspondence made it clear that the CBSA was looking for documentary evidence proving the legitimate origin of the funds. As was made clear in at least two letters to the Applicant, it was not enough to show that part of the money originated from a loan repayment; what was requested was additional evidence documenting the specific origin of the money that was lent in the first place. Accordingly, I find that the Applicant was adequately informed of the case that needed to be met.
b) Did the Minister breach his duty of fairness and of full disclosure by not forwarding to the Applicant the postscript attached to the Recourse Directorate Adjudicator’s letter of June 15, 2009?
 In my view, the Applicant overstates the significance of this post-script. The body of the letter sent to the Applicant contains the same essential message as does the allegedly secret post-script: that the CBSA was considering reducing the infraction and returning the funds. The disclosure of the post-script would have been of no benefit to the Applicant. It is true that the Agency was “considering accepting” the documentation provided by the Applicant, and reducing the level of infraction. However, no decision had yet been made and further information was thereafter communicated to the Adjudicator by the officer who had originally seized the currency. Moreover, the Adjudicator was not the person authorized to make the decision on behalf of the Minister. It cannot be said, therefore, that he revoked his decision, since no decision had been made or could have been made when the letter to which the post-script was attached had been sent.
c) Did the Applicant have the opportunity to decide not to continue with the exportation of the currency?
 In making this argument, the Applicant appears to understand s. 13 as imposing a positive obligation upon the officer to explicitly offer the person an opportunity to halt the exportation. However, a fair reading of s. 13 offers no indication that such a positive obligation exists. Furthermore, there is no suggestion in the record that the Applicant gave any signal communicating a desire to cease the exportation during the approximate 2.5 hours of questioning before the money was seized. As such, he cannot avail himself of s. 13.