This is an appeal of\u00a0an Enforcement Officer’s\u00a0decision to deport\u00a0the Appellant, the father of an Aboriginal Canadian child. The Appellant argued that deporting him would violate his child’s rights under section 7 of the Charter and overlooked the Best Interests of his child. The child would accompany the father if he were to be deported.<\/p>\n
JFCY\u2019s intervention focused on the Best Interests of the Child principle as being central to the decision-making process; and argued that\u00a0when\u00a0the child has Aboriginal status, there must be\u00a0due consideration to the government\u2019s historical discrimination against Aboriginal people, the long-standing harm caused by the former residential school system, and the current government\u2019s commitment to reconciliation.<\/p>\n
The\u00a0Court explained that under the existing case law, \u201cenforcement officers may look at the short-term best interests of the children whose parent(s) are being removed from Canada, but cannot engage in a full-blown humanitarian & compassionate analysis of such children\u2019s long-term best interests\u201d(at para 24). The Court also\u00a0disposed of the Charter argument, indicating that deporting the father posed no foreseeable risks to either his or his daughter\u2019s rights to life, liberty and security.<\/p>\n
The court concluded that the Enforcement Officer\u2019s decision was ultimately unreasonable because the officer failed to consider the short-term impacts that the deportations would have on the child\u2019s connection to her indigenous roots. In addition, the Enforcement Officer\u2019s assumption that the child could return to Canada is completely based on pure speculation. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the Enforcement Officer until Mr. Lewis\u2019 H&C application is complete.<\/p>\n