The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act does not spell out a strict procedure for determining inadmissibility. In practice, this determination is made through admissibility hearings, where an adjudicator decides whether a permanent resident or foreign national can enter or remain in Canada. The process must be fair and give the person a real chance to defend themselves.
Although there is no strict legal requirement that counsel be present at an admissibility determination, case law makes it clear that having a lawyer or paralegal involved is appropriate, and is often crucial. While some admissibility matters are simple, many are not. I always recommend that clients retain counsel not only for the hearing itself, but from the very first interaction with an immigration officer. Small mistakes or careless answers at the beginning can escalate into serious immigration consequences.
At an admissibility hearing, the Minister explains why they believe the person should be found inadmissible. The individual has the right to testify, answer questions, and respond through counsel. Both the Minister and the adjudicator may ask questions. Counsel then makes submissions, and the adjudicator decides the outcome. That outcome can range from allowing entry, granting temporary status, ordering further examination, or issuing a removal order.
Admissibility hearings involving foreign nationals are the most interesting, especially when someone enters Canada on a visitor visa and is accused of having the “wrong intent.” In plain terms: the officer thinks they secretly plan to stay forever.
One of my favorite cases involved a young woman who arrived with a big bag of makeup and lots of photos of her Canadian boyfriend. The Minister’s position? That this somehow proved she planned to live in Canada permanently. Our response was simple: she liked her boyfriend… and she liked makeup. Neither is an immigration offence. Being into skincare and carrying photos of someone you’re dating does not mean you are immigrating illegally.
Another case involved a foreign businessperson who had lists of Canadian real estate lawyers and agents, plus business documents on his laptop. Before I even had the chance to argue, the adjudicator shut it down: why would a legitimate businessperson not have Canadian contacts or plans? I later reinforced the point with evidence of my client’s assets and successful business abroad, making it clear that while Canada is great, he had zero need to overstay or disappear into the system.
Admissibility cases often come down to common sense. Liking your boyfriend. Owning makeup. Planning meetings. None of those things equal inadmissibility.
