Sarah Mills: Teachers deserve gratitude as school year wraps up
There's a collective sigh coming from Saskatchewan's teachers as the school year ends. Sarah Mills says teachers are ask...
OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada says a woman from Albania should have another chance to argue her immigration case after being denied an appeal due to an expired visa.
In March 2018, Dorinela Pepa came to Canada on a permanent resident visa as a dependent child of her father.
She married shortly before arriving in Canada, which was a surprise to her father. Due to the change in Pepa’s circumstances, her case went through further review.
An admissibility hearing before the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board began in September 2018, nine days after Pepa’s visa had expired.
On Oct. 18, 2018, the board issued a removal order barring Pepa from entering Canada for five years. Her father, stepmother and stepbrother now live here.
The Immigration Appeal Division of the board found Pepa had no right to appeal because her visa had already expired when the removal order was issued.
Pepa’s appeals to the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal were unsuccessful, prompting her to turn to the Supreme Court.
In its ruling Friday, the top court said the matter should be sent back to the Immigration Appeal Division for determination of Pepa’s appeal.
Writing for a majority of the court, Justice Sheilah Martin said it was unreasonable for the appeal division to find it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter under the provision of federal immigration law defining the right of appeal.
The appeal division’s reasons “lack internal rationality” and demonstrate a failure of justification, based on the relevant precedents, the applicable principles of statutory interpretation and the potential effect of the decision on Pepa, Martin wrote.
The appeal division’s reading of the relevant provision of federal immigration law is at odds with Parliament’s object and purpose in enacting the statutory appeal right, Martin said.
The “sole reasonable interpretation” of the immigration law is that the time of arrival in Canada is the point at which a person must hold a visa in order to access the right of appeal against a removal order, Martin added.
The Supreme Court found Pepa had a right to appeal her removal order to the Immigration Appeal Division because she held a permanent resident visa when she entered Canada.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 27, 2025.
Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press
