DUI and visiting Canada.

[schnellfeuer]

How many here have been refused entry into Canada due to having a DUI conviction? A friend of mine was refused entry at the border recently because of just that. He was with a group of friends on a trip and was called aside over a 1993 DUI conviction and was told he could not enter because of it. He said while telling his story around, he has since talked to two others who have had a similar experience. Can some of the Canadians here explain whats up with this? With the Canadian Peso being what it is, seems like a trivial thing to lose US tourisim and dollars over.

[whirlygigspin]

1. No, Canada

If you have a criminal record, you will be denied entry into
Canada.

--Unless your name is Bush--

you can go to have your record expunged, then you'll be ok.

[iverglas]

2. Damned if you do ... damned if you don't ...

Ask Hillary Clinton or any of your other honchos, on both sides of the aisle and in any US law enforcement / intelligence agency you like.

The Canadian border is porous and our border security lax. Didn't you know?

Driving while intoxicated is a criminal offence here. (Criminal law is under federal jurisdiction in Canada, just fyi.) In fact, it is one of the very few crimes for which the Supreme Court of Canada defers to Parliament and its view of public policy in relation to the harm caused by drunk driving and the measures needed to suppress it, and permits mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offences. In other words, it is taken seriously as a threat to public safety, and mandatory minimum sentences are regarded as one way of getting through the thick skulls and vast egos of drunk drivers, who otherwise tend to persist in their anti-social ways, and deterring them from doing so.

Criminals are regarded as potentially dangerous to Canadian society. People with criminal convictions are inadmissible to Canada. Would you have this some other way?

Driving while intoxicated is an "indictable offence" in Canada -- the equivalent of a "felony" in the US. (A "summary conviction" offence is the equivalent of a misdemeanour. Many offences are "hybrid" -- they may be prosecuted either way, usually at the discretion of the prosecutor, who will usually opt for summary conviction except in unusual cases. However, for immigration purposes, an offence that is equivalent to an offence that is hybrid in Canada is regarded as an indictable offence.)

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec253.html

253. Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,

(a) while the person's ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or

(b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person's blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec255.html

255. (1) Every one who commits an offence under section 253 or 254 is guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable,

(a) whether the offence is prosecuted by indictment or punishable on summary conviction, to the following minimum punishment, namely,

(i) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than six hundred dollars,

(ii) for a second offence, to imprisonment for not less than fourteen days, and

(iii) for each subsequent offence, to imprisonment for not less than ninety days;

(b) where the offence is prosecuted by indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; and

(c) where the offence is punishable on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.

Conviction for the equivalent of an indictable offence makes a person inadmissible to Canada. Such a person may apply for a determination that s/he has been rehabilitated:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/i-2.5/sec36.html

36.(2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for
...
(b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament;
...

(3) The following provisions govern subsections (1) and (2):

(a) an offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by way of indictment is deemed to be an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summarily;
...
(c) the matters referred to in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) and (2)(b) and (c) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of a permanent resident or foreign national who, after the prescribed period, satisfies the Minister that they have been rehabilitated or who is a member of a prescribed class that is deemed to have been rehabilitated;
...

The old Immigration Act, with which I was intimately familiar, contained a provision that an immigration officer at a port of entry had the discretion to allow certain inadmissible persons to enter Canada temporarily as a visitor. I do not believe that the present Immigration and Refugee Protection Act contains such a provision, but I'm not positive.

The current Premier of British Columbia was charged with drunk driving in Hawaii, and I assume has been convicted. If the US wants to keep him out, that's fine by me.

People who drive drunk are criminals. They are also, in most cases, at least "problem drinkers" if not full-blown alcoholics. The very fact that our Supreme Court agreed that repeat drunk driving -- i.e. continued criminal behaviour by people already convicted of one instance of it (how many drunk drivers are actually caught, and how many times that one of them drives drunk actually results in a charge?) is enough of a problem to permit mandatory minimum sentences, i.e. to permit a violation of rights set out in our Constitution, is a good indication of the problem that exists.

Me, I can live without worrying about adding to the problem by admitting people whose lack of ability/desire to refrain from endangering the public has already been demonstrated. Seems like a very few yanqui tourist dollars to forego for the security of knowing I'm not at even more risk from obnoxious drunks on the road than I already am.

But heck, if the prescribed time has passed and the person can satisfy the Immigration Minister that s/he can be relied on not to engage in this anti-social behaviour while here, then s/he should by all means go to the nearest consulate and make that application.

.

[schnellfeuer]

3. Thanks for the info iverglas

While DUI is a crime here too, its not (yet) considered a felony. Usually a one time DUI is expunged after a period of time with no repeat and taking the "classes". But so far, none of the people I know who had a DUI have had anything expunged, even though it was supposed to be. I guess once in the database, always in the database. I just thought it odd that after 10 years with the DUI being the only charge on his record, that that was reason enough not to be let in.

[iverglas]

4. who knows ...

Maybe Canadians are drunker drivers than USAmericans -- i.e. the problem here is worse therefore the legislative response is more severe.

(Cereally though, I doubt that; we just take a different view of what behaviours are more of a danger to society, and what sentences are likely to be effective in deterring individuals and the public from engaging in them, and what is permissible or not under our conception of fundamental rights and freedoms.)

This is certainly the exception in Canada as far as sentencing goes - the mandatory minimum sentence. That one did go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Almost all mandatory minimum sentences here have been struck down as unconstitutional.

The business about all crimes that are hybrid offences in Canada being regarded as indictable offences for immigration purposes is indeed inappropriate, as far as I'm concerned. It would also result in other "minor" offences making someone inadmissible; I handled such cases in practice, and my hands were somewhat tied because the courts had upheld the hybrid=indictable provisions.

And I'm sure that a lot of people would be completely unaware, and never suspect, that such "minor" offences would make them inadmissible to another country. Canadians would certainly feel that way about a conviction for possession of personal-use pot, for example. ;)

I don't know what the rate of success is for those "rehabilitation" applications. For someone with 10 years gone and no further convictions, and a need to enter Canada (or even just $200 to spend and some time to spare), I'd suggest trying it.

Here's one private website's info and advice:

http://www.legalline.ca/immigration/683.html

The govt website http://www.cic.gc.ca isn't telling me much useful ... aha, here we are; Google found it:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/kits/guides/5312E.PDF
cached html version

That's the application kit and complete information about applying. It also indicates that a request for special permission may be made and considered at the border, but it's a little vague. Frankly, where the mandatory 10 years without a conviction has passed, and where the conviction was not for a "serious" offence, I'd have thought such special permission might have been given (and most likely would have argued for it in the past if retained), but I'm out of the loop these days.

I was serious about the constant carping crap from south of the border about Canada's "porous" border and "lax" enforcement, though. The US can't have it both ways: demand that we tighten border procedures *and* complain about USAmericans with criminal records not being admitted.

At least we're not interrogating or detaining US citizens seeking to enter Canada (let alone deporting them to third countries without granting them access to counsel or consular officials) based on their place of birth and skin colour. Those things have very definitely happened to Canadian citizens seeking to enter the US, and Canadians subject to such treatment really are declining to travel to the US.

.

[schnellfeuer]

5. Thanks again

You boys better watch out up there, they keep running that John Candy movie about invading Canada down here a lot lately. Bush may be up to something. You dont have any WMD's hidden up there now do you? :)

[CO Liberal]

6. No Such Thing as a "Canadian Peso"

Their monetary system duplicates ours, down to the size of the coins.

Penny
Nickel
Dime
Quarter
Dollar

Et cetera and so on.....

[Spoonman]

7. Hey guys I got this one for you eh!

Coins - They don't call it a dollar, it's called a "loony".
They also have a two dollar coin called a "toony".

[iverglas]

8. congratulations

Coins - They don't call it a dollar, it's called a "loony".
They also have a two dollar coin called a "toony".

Aren't you the cleverboots. How hard did you work to come up with this common knowledge?

Well, even then you didn't get it quite right, did you? We do call our currency, and the coinage representing it, the dollar. The dollar coin, yes, is called a loonie. (Its obverse has an image of a loon, which is a water bird found in many parts of Canada, and "loonie" quickly supplanted "loon" as the shorthand. And now you know both the etymology and the spelling of the word.) While the term may be a little generalized -- "the loonie rose by four points on currency markets today" -- no one actually says "I paid 20 loonies for that book", I assure you. And while I might say to the co-vivant, standing in front of a vending machine, "gimme a loonie", I would certainly not say "lend me 10 loonies" ... . The coin, as the symbolic expression of the currency, is a dollar; as an object, it is a loonie.

My own favourite candidate for the obviously necessary name for the two-dollar coin was "doubloon", but the handier "toonie" won the race.

[Spoonman]

9. Never mind......

:eyes: