|
Statutory Interpretation - Ordinary Meaning. Pepa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
In Pepa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (SCC, 2025) the Supreme Court of Canada allowed an appeal, this from a Federal Court of Appeal decision (that from a judicial review at the Federal Court) that held that "it was reasonable for the IAD ['Immigration Appeal Division'] to have found that “it does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal pursuant to subsection 63(2) [SS: 'Right to appeal — visa and removal order'] of the [IRPA] if the permanent resident visa is expired at the time the removal order is issued”.Note: IRPA 63(2) provides that a "foreign national who holds a permanent resident visa may appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division against a decision to make a removal order against them made under subsection 44(2) or made at an admissibility hearing". Here the court considered the 'ordinary meaning' aspect of modern statutory interpretation:(1) Grammatical and Ordinary Meaning
[89] The ordinary meaning is “the natural meaning which appears when the provision is simply read through as a whole” (Canadian Pacific Air Lines Ltd. v. Canadian Air Line Pilots Assn., 1993 CanLII 31 (SCC), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 724, at p. 735). The ordinary meaning of the phrase “[a] foreign national who holds a permanent resident visa” is, quite simply, a foreign national who is in possession of a permanent resident visa. The Minister argues and the FC below held that since s. 63(2) is written in the present tense, having once held a permanent resident visa does not place an applicant within the ambit of this provision (R.F., at para. 82; F.C. decision, at para. 53).
[90] I agree that the provision does not say “holds or has held”, and the plain meaning is that the person must “hold” a visa at the appropriate time, in the present tense. The French version is not tied to a verb and focuses more on the status of the person as “[l]e titulaire d’un visa de résident permanent peut interjeter appel de la mesure de renvoi”. When interpreting bilingual legislation, both versions of the legislation are equally authentic and equally authoritative (see, e.g., M. Bastarache et al., The Law of Bilingual Interpretation (2008), at p. 28; Canada (Transportation Safety Board) v. Carroll‑Byrne, 2022 SCC 48, at para. 68; P.-A. Côté and M. Devinat, Interprétation des lois (5th ed. 2021), at paras. 356 et seq.).
[91] However, the key issue arising under s. 63(2) is not answered by an ordinary reading of either or both of the official versions. Even accepting that one must hold an unexpired visa under s. 63(2), the section does not prescribe the time at which the individual must hold that visa, or whether a visa which has since expired is still considered to have been “held” at the relevant time. In addition, under the modern approach to statutory interpretation, the analysis does not end with consideration of the text of the provision alone. Due to this, and because nothing in the open-ended wording of s. 63(2) addresses or answers this question, the determination of the relevant time must be informed by the other principles of statutory interpretation that ought to have been considered.
|
