Primary Relief Sought: Complete dismissal of inadmissibility allegations under IRPA s. 36(1)(b) based on fundamental procedural defects, fabricated evidence, and violations of international law in the underlying foreign proceedings.
This submission demonstrates that all purported convictions and legal proceedings from the United States and State of South Dakota are legally void ab initio due to systematic corruption, fabrication of evidence, and denial of fundamental justice. Canadian authorities are legally prohibited from relying on such tainted proceedings for immigration purposes.
Documented Evidence of Corruption:
Under the principle established in R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613, and R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265, evidence obtained in violation of fundamental rights must be excluded where its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The systematic corruption in Mr. Snow's case renders all proceedings legally null and void.
Canadian law requires that foreign convictions meet basic standards of procedural fairness before they can be recognized. As established in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, procedural fairness is a fundamental principle that cannot be compromised.
| Case Citation | Jurisdiction | Legal Principle | Application to Present Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Singh v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177 | Supreme Court of Canada | Foreign convictions obtained in violation of fundamental justice may be excluded from admissibility determinations | Direct application - systematic violations of fundamental justice in South Dakota proceedings |
| Charkaoui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9 | Supreme Court of Canada | National authorities cannot rely on procedurally unfair or fabricated foreign proceedings | Fabricated evidence and corrupt proceedings render reliance impermissible |
| R v. Hape, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 292 | Supreme Court of Canada | Evidence obtained abroad under unfair procedures may be inadmissible domestically | All evidence in Mr. Snow's case obtained through fundamentally unfair procedures |
| Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3 | Supreme Court of Canada | International human rights law informs Canadian immigration decisions | Multiple international law violations must inform inadmissibility analysis |
| De Guzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 436 | Federal Court of Appeal | Foreign convictions must meet minimum standards of due process | South Dakota proceedings failed to meet any recognizable due process standards |
| Medovarski v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 539 | Supreme Court of Canada | Immigration decisions must consider humanitarian and compassionate factors | Corruption and fabrication constitute exceptional H&C circumstances |
| Ezokola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 SCC 40 | Supreme Court of Canada | International legal standards must be applied in immigration context | International law prohibits reliance on corrupt foreign proceedings |
Relying on fabricated foreign convictions to determine admissibility violates Mr. Snow's s. 7 Charter rights. As confirmed in Charkaoui v. Canada, 2007 SCC 9, at para. 19, the principles of fundamental justice require that decisions affecting liberty be based on reliable evidence, not fabricated proceedings.
The presumption of innocence extends to immigration proceedings involving criminal allegations. R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, establishes that this presumption cannot be defeated by unreliable foreign determinations.
Differential treatment based on fabricated foreign convictions violates equality guarantees under s. 15 of the Charter.
| Jurisdiction | Case/Principle | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | R (Othman) v. Secretary of State - European Court of Human Rights | States cannot rely on evidence obtained through torture or fundamental unfairness |
| European Union | European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision - Art. 3 & 4 | Mandatory refusal of recognition where fundamental rights violated |
| Australia | Minister for Immigration v. Li (2013) HCA 18 | Administrative decisions must consider reliability of foreign determinations |
| New Zealand | Refugee Appeal No. 76044 (2008) NZRSAA | Corrupt foreign legal systems cannot provide basis for adverse determinations |
For inadmissibility under IRPA s. 36(1)(b), there must be a conviction for an offense that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offense. However, this provision presupposes a valid conviction obtained through lawful proceedings.
The required equivalency analysis under R. v. Klippert principles cannot proceed where the foreign conviction is fundamentally unreliable. As established in Li v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 1, the equivalency analysis requires consideration of the reliability of the foreign proceedings.
Under customary international law, states have an obligation not to recognize or give effect to foreign judicial determinations obtained through systematic corruption or denial of fundamental justice. This principle is reflected in numerous international instruments and state practice.
Canada's treaty obligations under the ICCPR, CAT, and other human rights instruments create positive obligations to:
The systematic corruption and fabrication in Mr. Snow's case constitute exceptional circumstances warranting H&C relief under IRPA s. 25. As established in Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61, decision-makers must consider the impact of exceptional circumstances.
The separation of Mr. Snow from his children based on fabricated convictions violates the best interests principle established in Baker v. Canada and reinforced in Kolosovs v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 165.
Core Legal Position: All purported U.S. and South Dakota convictions against Dean Snow are void ab initio due to systematic corruption, fabrication of evidence, and denial of fundamental justice. Canadian law prohibits reliance on such tainted proceedings for immigration purposes, and international law requires their non-recognition.
While the Minister bears the initial burden under IRPA s. 36(1)(b), Mr. Snow has provided overwhelming evidence of corruption that shifts the burden to the Minister to demonstrate the reliability of the foreign proceedings - a burden that cannot be met given the documented systematic failures.
The evidence presented demonstrates conclusively that:
Respectfully submitted, this tactical counter-submission demonstrates that Mr. Snow is entitled to full recognition of his rights under Canadian law and complete dismissal of all inadmissibility allegations based on corrupt and fabricated foreign proceedings.