# Traveling from the U.S. to Canada with a DUI - your experiences? **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [February 21, 2017, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traveling-from-the-u-s-to-canada-with-a-dui-your-experiences/780407 "2017-02-21T19:06:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2017, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traveling-from-the-u-s-to-canada-with-a-dui-your-experiences/780407/21 "2017-02-22T15:51:57Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > Just curious… what about being convicted of “Physical Control”? It is similar to a DUI conviction, but it means the (drunk) person was simply sitting in a car that was parked. Here in Ohio, it is not uncommon for a first-time offender of DUI to plead down “physical control.” It is an M1 misdemeanor (same as a DUI), but does not incur any points on the driver license. It’s all covered in the same offence, s. 253 of the Criminal Code. Being in care and control while impaired / over 80 is the same offence as driving. It can be proceeded with summarily or by indictment, at the option of the Crown. Conviction for care and control carries the same penalties and criminal record as driving while impaired / over 80. Care and control also carries the same driving prohibitions as driving convictions, so no incentive to try to plead to care and control instead of driving. All variants are criminal offences. > **[Criminal Code](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-253.html)** > > Federal laws of Canada ---
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2017, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traveling-from-the-u-s-to-canada-with-a-dui-your-experiences/780407/22 "2017-02-22T18:36:29Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > Are you entering the country, or changing planes without entering the country? not sure. i think as\*\* lord felton\*\* points out below, that its both. i’m not actually leaving the airport but i might still have to go through some security to get to the next plane. i’ve never been to YVR so i dont know how it’s set up. whenever i’ve returned from abroad to ORD before, the plane seemed to always empty into a screening area whether or not it was you final destination. but i may be mis-remembering. mc ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2017, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traveling-from-the-u-s-to-canada-with-a-dui-your-experiences/780407/23 "2017-02-22T20:11:53Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > i had no idea. . . i change planes in vancouver on my way to seoul next week. i have a dui from 15 yrs ago. does anyone here know what i need to do? i.ve tried google and all ive found so far are canadian law firms who would be willing to take my case - for a fee of course. do i need to get help? is there time? i understand that y’all cant give legal advise, but any info is appreciated! > > oh, my. . . > > mc Which state did you get it in? Most states expunge DUIs, if it’s been X years without an additional one - here it is 7 years. This may be automatic or something you have to request. Maybe your DMV should have the info? Which then brings up the question: can Canadian authorities still see the expunged one, and if they can, do they still care after the point? It seems so arbitrary, and I’ve never heard anyone get a good answer from .ca without actually attempting the crossing. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2017, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traveling-from-the-u-s-to-canada-with-a-dui-your-experiences/780407/24 "2017-02-22T20:42:15Z")
Bear in mind, a lot of people seem to approach this issue as if Canada singles out drunk driving offences for special treatment. That’s not the case: these restrictions on entry apply to all criminal offences. What seems to be different between the US and Canada is that in Canada, drunk driving offences are treated as criminal offences for all purposes; they’re not seen as “misdemeanours” or highway traffic offences (see my answer to **Crafter\_man** about care and control; those seem to be highway traffic offences in his state, but in Canada, they’re a criminal offence, just like driving while impaired). ---
**Author:** ![D18](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@D18](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D18)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2017, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traveling-from-the-u-s-to-canada-with-a-dui-your-experiences/780407/25 "2017-02-22T21:11:49Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Dig about in the [Immigration and Refugee Protection Act](http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/index.html) and decisions set out in CANLII. It comes down to the balance of proof aka preponderance of evidence. > > Conviction = a conviction (which usually means a conviction that was made upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt). > > Committed = a reason to believe that based on a balance of probabilities that the offence as defined in Canada had been committed, regardless of whether or not there had been a conviction. > > For example, let’s say that in Canada mopery is a heinous, nasty indictable offence, whereas in the USA, mopery is a respected profession. In the USA, Uncle Jimmy proudly advertised himself as the best professional moper in all of the nation. Upon his giving the fine officers of CBSA his business card and stating his occupation, he would be politely but firmly turned back at the Canadian border because on a balance of probabilities it appeared that he had moped, regardless of moping not being illegal in the USA, and there not being evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually had moped. Hope this isn’t too much of a hijack, but under this logic are you saying that if an American when entering Canada is asked if he has a weapon, and he says that no he doesn’t at the time, but (because he loves the second amendment oh so passionately) he volunteers that at home he always carries one openly, as is his constitutional right, that he could be denied entry? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2017, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traveling-from-the-u-s-to-canada-with-a-dui-your-experiences/780407/26 "2017-02-22T21:25:28Z")
They can deny entry for any reason they want. And not so loud - they might build a wall and make us pay for it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2017, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traveling-from-the-u-s-to-canada-with-a-dui-your-experiences/780407/27 "2017-02-22T21:47:07Z")
Good heavens, I totally screwed that up! Thanks, D18 for correcting me. My sincere apologies to everyone for getting it so very wrong. Here is what I should have written rather than the nonsense that I did write: If mopery were legal in the USA, then having moped in the USA would not block admission to Canada. If if mopery were illegal in the USA, and if there was evidence of the moper actually having moped in the USA to the degree that CSAB believed on a balance of probability that he indeed had committed mopery, then he would be inadmissible to Canada even if he had never been convicted of mopery in the USA. Note that a conviction made in the USA based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient but is not necessary to refuse admission into Canada. All that is necessary is proof on a balance of probability that mopery had been committed. Sorry again, for my botching it. I appreciate your catching my error. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2017, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traveling-from-the-u-s-to-canada-with-a-dui-your-experiences/780407/28 "2017-02-22T21:54:39Z")
Even Homer nods. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2017, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traveling-from-the-u-s-to-canada-with-a-dui-your-experiences/780407/29 "2017-02-22T21:55:16Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Bear in mind, a lot of people seem to approach this issue as if Canada singles out drunk driving offences for special treatment. That’s not the case: these restrictions on entry apply to all criminal offences. What seems to be different between the US and Canada is that in Canada, drunk driving offences are treated as criminal offences for all purposes; they’re not seen as “misdemeanours” or highway traffic offences (see my answer to **Crafter\_man** about care and control; those seem to be highway traffic offences in his state, but in Canada, they’re a criminal offence, just like driving while impaired). thanks for that clarification. i think what people are surprised at is that here (in the us) misdemeanors are taken as less serious than felonies, and have far fewer, if any, long lasting consequences. i know i did. and i’ve traveled abroad before (mexico, europe, caribbean), and this has never come up. maybe i’ve just been lucky! mc ---
**Author:** ![mikecurtis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mikecurtis/32/3284_2.png) [@mikecurtis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mikecurtis)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2017, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traveling-from-the-u-s-to-canada-with-a-dui-your-experiences/780407/30 "2017-02-22T21:58:44Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Even Homer nods. 😉 learned a new phrase today, thanks **NP**! mc ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traveling-from-the-u-s-to-canada-with-a-dui-your-experiences/780407/31 "2017-02-23T01:32:24Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Good heavens, I totally screwed that up! Thanks, D18 for correcting me. My sincere apologies to everyone for getting it so very wrong. > > Here is what I should have written rather than the nonsense that I did write: > > If mopery were legal in the USA, then having moped in the USA would not block admission to Canada. > > If if mopery were illegal in the USA, and if there was evidence of the moper actually having moped in the USA to the degree that CSAB believed on a balance of probability that he indeed had committed mopery, then he would be inadmissible to Canada even if he had never been convicted of mopery in the USA. Note that a conviction made in the USA based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient but is not necessary to refuse admission into Canada. All that is necessary is proof on a balance of probability that mopery had been committed. > > Sorry again, for my botching it. I appreciate your catching my error. How does an immigration officer make such a fine distinction? Suppose that 4 years ago I was charged with mopery, but the charges were dismissed on motion of the state. On what evidence would the officer find (or alternatively not find) that I had indeed committed mopery by a preponderance? ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traveling-from-the-u-s-to-canada-with-a-dui-your-experiences/780407/32 "2017-02-23T07:46:54Z")
Avoiding moping in front of him might help. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traveling-from-the-u-s-to-canada-with-a-dui-your-experiences/780407/33 "2017-02-23T08:08:51Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > How does an immigration officer make such a fine distinction? Suppose that 4 years ago I was charged with mopery, but the charges were dismissed on motion of the state. On what evidence would the officer find (or alternatively not find) that I had indeed committed mopery by a preponderance? Maybe a mope-detecting dog hit on your luggage, and they swabbed it and tested it with an ion scanner that detects a high level of mope residue, and while no actual mope is found they want a good explanation for why there’s such evidence that you’re a moper. And then, lo and behold, they do a detailed search of court records and it turns out that a few years ago you were charged with possession of mope in the first degree. Alternatively, maybe you’re a doctor with a license to prescribe mope, and you explain that the charge was just a big misunderstanding and have documentation of your medical license with you. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traveling-from-the-u-s-to-canada-with-a-dui-your-experiences/780407/34 "2017-02-23T11:12:03Z")
> [@mikecurtis](#): > > thanks for that clarification. i think what people are surprised at is that here (in the us) misdemeanors are taken as less serious than felonies, and have far fewer, if any, long lasting consequences. i know i did. and i’ve traveled abroad before (mexico, europe, caribbean), and this has never come up. maybe i’ve just been lucky! > > mc There was a previous thread on this issue a while ago, and it was mentioned that Canada and the US are more strict about barring entry for past criminal activities than countries in Europe. That may be why you’ve not run into the issue before. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traveling-from-the-u-s-to-canada-with-a-dui-your-experiences/780407/35 "2017-02-23T11:13:09Z")
Really, once you’ve seen the falls and the wax museum, Canada doesn’t offer all that much. ---
**Author:** ![hogarth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hogarth/32/1773_2.png) [@hogarth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hogarth)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traveling-from-the-u-s-to-canada-with-a-dui-your-experiences/780407/36 "2017-02-23T11:30:35Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > How does an immigration officer make such a fine distinction? Suppose that 4 years ago I was charged with mopery, but the charges were dismissed on motion of the state. On what evidence would the officer find (or alternatively not find) that I had indeed committed mopery by a preponderance? I saw an episode of the show Border Security where Canadian customs agents Googled a guy’s name and found all kinds of accusations that he was a Russian gangster. Of course, the guy admitted that he had been convicted of killing someone, so that probably would have kept him out even without the Googling. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traveling-from-the-u-s-to-canada-with-a-dui-your-experiences/780407/37 "2017-02-23T15:48:46Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > They can deny entry for any reason they want. I once had a Canadian woman deny me entry because she didn’t like my haircut. ---
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traveling-from-the-u-s-to-canada-with-a-dui-your-experiences/780407/38 "2017-02-23T15:52:47Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > I once had a Canadian woman deny me entry because she didn’t like my haircut. Is this in the context of border control, or your sex life? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traveling-from-the-u-s-to-canada-with-a-dui-your-experiences/780407/39 "2017-02-23T15:56:37Z")
> [@gnoitall](#): > > Is this in the context of border control, or your sex life? 😕 I think you found the joke! ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2017, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traveling-from-the-u-s-to-canada-with-a-dui-your-experiences/780407/40 "2017-02-23T18:11:59Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > How does an immigration officer make such a fine distinction? Suppose that 4 years ago I was charged with mopery, but the charges were dismissed on motion of the state. On what evidence would the officer find (or alternatively not find) that I had indeed committed mopery by a preponderance? In practical terms, forget about arguing balance of probability minutiae with a border guard. The easiest option would be to apply for a temporary rehabilitation. It that is not granted, then apply for a temporary resident permit. If either of these are granted, you get to cross the border at that time rather than miss whatever it is that you wanted to get into Canada to do. Then when you are back home in the USA, apply for a permanent rehabilitation so that whatever the historical mess was about, if you are granted a permanent rehabilitation, it won’t stop you at the border again. [Here’s a handy-dandy vid on the rehabilitation application process.](https://youtu.be/b0a6iWHSWbA?t=1m33s) Some types of immigration matters have an appeal route via an administrative tribunal (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada), and some do not. Either way, if you want to fight on principle rather than simply get the job done, and argue over what you would allege was a sniff test rather than a proper weighing of actual evidence, then ultimately you could get the matter into Federal Court via judicial review and from there attempt to follow the appeal chain. The courts would not have the authority to grant you admission into Canada, but they would have the authority to make the CBSA re-do your admission process if they thought it had been botched. Yes, this could lead to a Groundhog Day cycle, but in reality, the CSAB takes the courts very, very seriously. To directly address your question, let’s have a look at the boundary between abductive reasoning and a sniff test. [http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf](http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf05-eng.pdf) at 8.7 re. writing an exclusion order: > [@](#): > > Evidentiary requirements To form the opinion that a person is inadmissible to Canada, an officer must have knowledge of the evidentiary rules and requirements for immigration matters. Knowledge of what may be required to substantiate an allegation of inadmissibility is an important consideration in all cases. > Each allegation has specific requirements for evidence; officers are to be guided by the content of chapters ENF 1, Inadmissibility and ENF 2, Evaluating Inadmissibility. > Proof ‘’beyond a reasonable doubt” is the evidentiary rule only in criminal cases. The standard of proof in the context of immigration matters depends on the specific inadmissibility allegation and will be based on either “reasonable grounds to believe” or a “balance of probabilities.” > “Reasonable grounds to believe” is a bona fide belief in a serious possibility based on credible evidence. That is, the grounds are a set of facts and circumstances that would satisfy an ordinarily cautious and prudent person and that are more than mere suspicion. > ENF 5 Writing 44(1) Reports > 2013-08-20 12 > “Balance of probabilities” means that the evidence presented must show that the facts as alleged are more probable than not. Reasonable grounds is a lower threshold than balance of probability, which itself is a far lower threshold than beyond a reasonable doubt. When it comes to front-line evidentiary problems in immigration law, when weighing evidence (or the lack thereof) reasonable grounds is what is used when initially deciding admissibility. The reasonable grounds test helps the CBSA deal with evidentiary problems without going as far as getting into reverse onus. In my opinion, it comes very close to being a sniff test. [http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf02-eng.pdf](http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf02-eng.pdf) > [@](#): > > 3.1 Reasonable grounds versus balance of probabilities Section A33 states specifically that the facts that constitute inadmissibility under sections A34 to A37 include facts arising from omissions and, unless otherwise provided, include ENF 2/OP 18 Evaluating Inadmissibility 2015-08-01 8 > facts for which there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have occurred, are > occurring or may occur. However, A36(3)(d) provides an exception for A36(1)(c), where the facts must be established on the balance of probabilities that a permanent resident committed an offence. > There have been several rulings from the Federal Court of Appeal to clarify the meaning of reasonable grounds. The key points may be summarized as follows: > > 1. “Reasonable grounds” is a bona fide belief in a serious possibility based on credible > evidence. “Reasonable grounds” is a lower standard of proof than the civil standard which is the “balance of probabilities.” > 2. If you have reasonable grounds to believe, you are more than suspicious. You have some objective basis for your belief. Put another way, the fact itself need not be proven; it is enough to show reasonable grounds for believing the allegation true. > 3. Reasonable grounds to believe” imports a standard of proof which lies between mere suspicion and the “balance of probabilities.” > 4. Balance of probabilities” is the civil standard of proof used in administrative tribunals, unless otherwise specified. It means that the evidence presented must show that the facts as alleged are more probable than not. Accordingly, a party having the burden of proof by a “balance of probabilities” must be able to persuade, by the evidence, that a claim or a fact is more probably true than not true. The evidence presented favours or outweighs opposing evidence. “Balance of probabilities” is a higher standard of proof than “reasonable grounds to believe,” but is lower than the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” used in criminal proceedings. > Question: Would a rational person with the same information reach the same > conclusion? For example, an anonymous letter alleging certain facts may arouse suspicion but would not normally constitute reasonable grounds. On the other hand, a document from a proper authority may be sufficient to establish reasonable grounds that an event has occurred. > Synopsis > Reasonable grounds are a set of facts and circumstances that would satisfy an ordinarily cautious and prudent person, and which are more than mere suspicion. Information used to establish reasonable grounds should be specific, credible and be received from a reliable source. > **[enf01-eng.pdf](https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf)** > [@](#): > > Kiani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 96 F.T.R. 241, 31 Imm. L.R. (2d) 269 • Foreign police reports, oral admissions, and other circumstantial evidence may be enough to prove that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant was convicted of a serious offence abroad. > > Canada (Attorney General) v. Jolly, [1975] F.C. 216, 54 D.L.R. (3d) 277, 7 N.R. 271 (Fed.C.A.) • The question is not will the applicant engage in espionage or subversion or terrorism, but whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person will so behave. Even if evidence is given negating this fact, it is only necessary for the Minister to show the existence of reasonable grounds for believing the fact. It is not necessary for the Minister to go further in establishing the subversive character of the persons subject to the proceeding. > > Halm v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1995), 27 C.R.R. (2d) 23, 91 F.T.R. 106 • Equivalency is not required to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. All that is required is that the adjudicator determine that the applicant is a person with respect to whom there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that they have been convicted outside of Canada of an equivalent offence. > > Legault v. Canada (Secretary of State) (1997), 42 Imm. L.R. (2d) 192, 133 F.T.R. 320 (note), 219 N.R. 376 (Fed. C.A.); leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused (1998), 227 N.R. (note) (S.C.C.) • “Reasonable grounds” are enough to show that the applicant falls within A36(1)(b) and (c). In this case, a warrant and indictment were sufficient. So where does that leave us? When trying to get into Canada, expect [abductive reasoning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning) based not only on evidence at hand, but also based on reasonable inference being used to fill in the blanks. The best way to prepare for a CSAB officer using abductive reasoning it to prepare for your crossing as if you are under reverse onus. Of course you are not under reverse onus, but by preparing as if you were, you will be better able to identify the inferences that the border guard is likely to make, and once you have identified these chinks in your armour, you can collect evidence to fill in the gaps so that when you eventually try to cross into Canada the CSAB officer will not have to make as many inferences when trying to decide whether or not to let you in. For folks who aren’t sure how to prepare this way, they should contact a Canadian immigration paralegal or immigration lawyer far in advance of when they wish to try to enter Canada. As an aside, what I consider to be the weakest point in this process is that it can be abused by bigots having a bad day, so I am glad that administrative oversight includes watching for officers who have a disproportionate number of interactions that result in inadmissibility, and follow up to try to determine if an officer has been letting personal prejudices affect his or her abductive reasoning. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traveling-from-the-u-s-to-canada-with-a-dui-your-experiences/780407.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traveling-from-the-u-s-to-canada-with-a-dui-your-experiences/780407.md?page=3)