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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So where does that leave us? When trying to get into Canada, expect 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.
