(416) 969-9263
Menu

Dhindsa v. Canada

Dhindsa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Ravijeet Singh Dhindsa, appellant, and
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, respondent

[1997] I.A.D.D. No. 670
No. T96-04418

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Immigration Appeal Division
Toronto, Ontario
Panel: E. Teitelbaum

Heard: March 13, 1997
Decision: March 13, 1997

Appearances:

M. Berger, for the appellant.
J. Buchanan, for the respondent.

DECISION FROM THE BENCH
  1. This is the appeal of Ravijeet Singh DHINDSA from the deportation order issued against him, which reads as follows: [See Note 1 below]

Note 1: Exhibit R-1.

ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT THE INQUIRY HELD UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT, I HAVE DECIDED THAT YOU ARE A PERSON DESCRIBED IN:

27(1)(d)(ii)

I HEREBY ORDER THAT YOU BE DEPORTED PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 32(2) OF THE ACT.

Max Berger, Barrister and Solicitor represented Mr. Dhindsa. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was represented by John Buchanan. An interpreter fluent in the Punjabi and English languages was present throughout.

  1. The validity of the deportation order was not contested therefore I find that the order is valid in law. The facts as I have them before me are as follows.
  2. Ravijeet Singh Dhindsa was born July 2, 1975 in India and is a citizen of that country. At the time of his troubles he was not living with his family but because he was looking for work he moved in with an aunt. At that time he got involved with a girl. They argued, her brother who had been Mr. Dhindsa’s friend thought that Mr. Dhindsa was ruining the family reputation. Mr. Dhindsa was beaten up which, in turn, provoked a vengeful response from him. This led to convictions for a variety of offenses as can be seen from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police report which for the purposes of clarity is reproduced as follows: [See Note 2 below]

Note 2: Exhibit R-1.

Date And Place Of Disposition Charge Disposition
1996-04-26 (1) Criminal Harassment Harassment (1) 1 Mos & Probation
Brampton Ont Sec 264(2)(D) Cc 36 Mos & Prohibited
Firearms, Ammunition Or Explosive Substances For 10 Yrs
2) Uttering Threats Sec 264.1(1) Cc (2-3) 1 Mo On Each Chg Consec & Consec
(3) Mischief Over $5000 Sec 430(3) Cc
(4) Assault With A Weapon Sec 267 Cc (4) 2 Mos Consec
(5) Poss Of A Weapon Sec 87 Cc (5) 3 Mos Consec & (2 Mos Pre-Sentence Custody)
(6) Aggravated Assault Sec 268 Cc (6) 4 Mos Consec
(7) Assault Cbh Sec 267 Cc (Peel Reg Pf Occ 016102-96) (7) 5 Mos Conc
  1. The evidence is that Mr. Dhindsa has only ever been in trouble once in his life albeit over a protracted period of several months. His convictions arose chiefly from disputes over his quarrelsome relationship with his girlfriend. Matters escalated when her brother attacked him. Mr. Dhindsa retaliated in violent ways. The evidence is that no one received anything other than minor injuries and in some cases no injuries at all.
  2. Mr. Dhindsa has acknowledged that during this time he believed he was right in his actions. It is clear that he has since understood with clarity his culpability. Indeed he acknowledged this at his court hearing. There are documents to show that he has successfully completed a variety of courses while in jail to help him solidify his understanding. He claims he was in several situations while in the institution that could have involved him in fights. Instead he chose to extricate himself.
  3. A number of witnesses appeared to testify here today on Mr. Dhindsa’s behalf. Except for a priest of the Sikh temple they were members of his family including a prospective employer. It is clear that Mr. Dhindsa is surrounded by people who care deeply about his well-being and are involved in his life. His mother, sister and brother-in-law expect him to live with them when he is released. His aunt maintains close contact with him.
  4. The family has suffered considerably as a result of his behaviour. Mr. Dhindsa himself is deeply ashamed of the misery he has inflicted on them and on himself. Despite their unhappiness they visited him frequently during his incarceration. As his father is dead his brother-in-law Sarwan Singh Malhotra has assumed the role of head of the household. He too is prepared to continue to assume responsibility for Mr. Dhindsa. Assurance was given by Tarsan Singh Bajwa that a job is waiting for Mr. Dhindsa in his business as a sales representative with a view to management level upon his release. Mr. Dhindsa is also planning to return to school.
  5. Gurdev Singh, a priest, testified that Mr. Dhindsa has contacted him for help. He expects Mr. Dhindsa will be attending at the Sikh temple with the rest of the family upon his release. He also has an active plan for Mr. Dhindsa’s rehabilitation concerning contributing to social services.
  6. Of considerable importance in arriving at my decision were His Honour Judge Budzinski’s [See Note 3 below] reasons for sentence, Adjudicator J.E. McNamara’s [See Note 4 below] comments at Mr. Dhindsa’s inquiry, as well as the report by psychiatrist Doctor Richard Stall. [See Note 5 below] Clearly His Honour believed that Mr. Dhindsa accepted responsibility for his own actions. As well he took into account the family’s desire to help Mr. Dhindsa restructure his life all of which gave His Honour, as he put it, some satisfaction that Mr. Dhindsa’s rehabilitation and the protection of the community can be maintained in an open structure outside of the jail setting.

Note 3: Exhibit A-1.

Note 4: Exhibit A-2.

Note 5: Exhibit A-1.

  1. Mr. McNamara put it on record that he could not imagine anything else Mr. Dhindsa could have done in the institution and believes he did more than anyone else he had seen in the circumstances. Doctor Stall concluded after interviewing Mr. Dhindsa and various family members that Mr. Dhindsa is truly remorseful for his past actions. He does not believe this behaviour will be repeated nor does he believe that Mr. Dhindsa poses a danger to society.
  2. To give Mr. Dhindsa an opportunity to demonstrate that he is capable of honouring his word, that his past behaviour was isolated and will never be repeated, I will put him on a five-year stay of execution of the deportation order with conditions. (Edited for grammar and syntax)

“E. Teitelbaum”

DATED at Toronto this 13th day of May, 1997.


Back

Request Information





Please select the Square and click the Submit button.

Refresh
Submit

Recent blog posts

Posted by on 03 Oct 2016

Ever since it was created in 1989, the Immigration and Refugee Board and the refugee determination system that it administers has been a work in…

Read More

View All

Media Coverage

Thousands of refugee cases suspended due to border agency delays