This week the Federal Court came to a decision in the case of Alvin Brown, who spent more than five years in immigration detention before being deported. Brown’s lawyers presented the court with a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the laws that allow potentially indefinite detention of migrants who are under a removal order. The challenge failed and the laws were upheld. However, the judge certified the constitutional question, which means that the issue may now be appealed to a higher court.


Immigration detention is used in cases where a removal order has been made but there is concern that the person in question will not appear for an examination, inquiry, or removal as ordered, or that they may pose a danger to the public, or where their identity cannot be verified. The detention should only last as long as it takes to properly identify the person or to carry out their removal from Canada. However, situations can arise where it may take a very long time for that to happen, such as when a person’s home country can’t or won’t provide them with travel or identity documents.


There are dedicated Immigration Holding Centres in Toronto, Laval, and Vancouver that are used only for this purpose, but in locations where there is no IHC, a detainee may be held in a provincial jail or prison. Even where IHCs exist, there are several reasons that a detainee might be transferred to a provincial correctional facility, such as, for example, if they have a criminal record or a serious medical condition that the IHC is not equipped to handle.


In Alvin Brown’s case, he was held in a maximum-security facility. The five-year delay was caused by the failure of the Jamaican consulate to issue travel documents for him. He had been living in Canada since he was a child but did not have citizenship, and was declared inadmissible after convictions for drug trafficking, robbery, and uttering threats. Brown suffered from schizophrenia and drug addiction and was considered a danger to the public and unlikely to appear voluntarily to be removed, especially since he had children in Canada and since he had failed to comply with conditions of his release in the past.


The immigration detention laws were challenged under sections 7, 9, and 12 of the Charter: that is, the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice; the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned; and the right against cruel or unusual treatment or punishment. Counsel for Mr. Brown advocated for a cap on immigration detention along the lines of the U.S. or European systems, wherein a “reasonable” length for a detention is presumed to be six months, after which time evidence must be shown that there is still a significant likelihood that removal will be possible. Counsel also suggested an absolute cap of 18 months.


Justice Fothergill of the Federal Court reviewed evidence that the current system often fails to provide procedural protections in accordance with fundamental justice. Issues identified included: the tendency of detention review boards to pre-judge the outcome of a hearing, creating a reverse onus on the detainee to show why they shouldn’t be held longer rather than on the Minister to show why they should; the inadequate amount of time and information that detainees and their counsel often get to prepare for a hearing; and the lack of control that the Immigration Division has over the conditions the detainee is held in once s/he is transferred to a provincial correctional facility.


Ultimately, Justice Fothergill found that the problems which counsel described did not come from the law itself but from the improper application of the law by immigration authorities. He concluded that “the question of when detention for immigration purposes is no longer reasonable does not have a single, simple answer. It depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. … The availability and effectiveness of [the] review mechanisms are sufficient to render the statutory scheme constitutional.”


In 2016, 5,886 people were detained for immigration purposes in Canada.


Also this week, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale announced a contract between Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian Red Cross to have the CRC monitor immigration detentions by performing regular visits to detention facilities and publishing annual reports.

Borders Law firm

sandeep r

My PR Application was taking long time and finally had a query on my case. That is when I approached Border's Law. Devika and Brendan handled my case very professionally with extra care. I highly recommend this law firm especially when you need that extra help. Thanks Devika and Brendan, you guys were so patient with me :).

Suresh Bhoopathy

I wish to express my sincere appreciation with the services we received from your law firm. Borders Law Firm provided us with an amazing, valuable resource and experience. I have worked with couple of law firms in the past but the experience with your firm was professional and personal. Frankly speaking, Devika and Phing were available whenever I needed legal help and crisp / precise with the entire process. I have nothing but good things to say about our experience with your firm. Thanks a ton for the best services and continue your great service. Suresh Bhoopathy

Harmanpreet Singh

We have had an excellent experience with Borders Law firm & would like to personally thank Jenny Mao who was handling our application & was extremely prompt in her responses, well versed with the documentation & professional throughout our journey. Would strongly recommend them for a personalized service & vast knowledge on the subject

Neha K

Borders Law firm - Devika OMG where do I start from.... so I got her number from my CA who I have been getting my taxes filed from last ten years. I was not sure what will happen to my mom's files becuase I had already tried four times before and everytime there was something or the other that happened and my application was not accepted... Devika has been my good luck, an angel in my life and a miracle believe it or not. I wish I could give you the details about why it was so so so important for my mom to get this immigration but unfortunately I can't share my personal details but I can tell you all one thing, that Devika and her team not only helped me with my mom's immigration case but also helped me with her super visa extension and all other obstacles we faced. I had no idea that my file can get approved so fast. Today I feel like my dream of having my mom here permanently came true all because of Devika.She is very knowledgeable, super patient, went out of her way to do, spent extra hours assisting me and completing this file. Always understood and heard my issues, with patience. I don't know how many times I cried with her and she always gave me hope and strength to be patient and wait for the approval. Honestly I am very impressed how she adds human touch to her immigration cases and treats the families with so much love and always been very professional as well. Devika is the best, she has an awesome awesome team. I can go on and on and on about her. I always suggest my friends her name and tell them about her services.It feels so good when I give her number to people in need of a good immigration lawyer, because in my heart I know that Devika will be able to help them with their immigration very well.She is the best Thank you Devika for being a great lawyer,a great human being and an angel in my life. Himanshi (Mansi)

See more Google Reviews

Copyright © 2024 Borders Law firm
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.