Machjo

All she knew was that a friend of a friend (more like an acquaintance) was in town and contacted her on social media. My fiancée was not interested in seeing her but that person had asked for her help to run her some errands (makeup and such). She then invited my fiancée for her birthday and since my fiancée has a reputation as a good cook, asked her to cook her something for her birthday. My fiancée finally agreed. She was aware that this person might be suffering gambling addiction, which is why she wasn't so interested in seeing her but she finally did that morning anyway out of kindness. So yes, bad decision on her part, but also reasonably understandable. To be fair, consider how ex-Colonel Russell William's wife, superiors, inferiors, equals, family, friends, the Prime Minister and even the Queen had trusted him and never suspected that he was a serial killer. Did all of those people have bad judgment? Why hold a tourist to a higher standard than the Queen herself who trusted the ex-Colonel as her pilot on at least one iccasion?

http://www.law.utoronto.ca/news/canada-border-services-agency-s-imprisonment-migrants-mental-health-issues-arbitrary-cruel Another interesting article concerning the mental health of detainees. My fiancée told me what was enotionally more disturbing than the arrest and detention was the fact that the CBSA just presumed her guilty and wouldn't even listen to her. She felt good at the bond hearing for finally having had the chance to prove some statements to be false. But she was enraged when the CBSA lawyer asked her the same questions again at another hearing for her to have to remind the lawyer that those statements had already been proven to be false at the bond hearing! She blew up when the CBSA lawyer asked her why the officer wrote what he wrote, since she wanted to know the answer to that too but that he wasn't there for questionning. The judge had to calm my fiancée down and chastised the CBSA lawyer for such a stupid question! It seems like the process purposely aims not to prove a person guilty but rather to just try to break them down maybe figuring they'll eventually give up and say you know what, I'm sick of this and just want to go home.

She was intercepted by the local police at the home of a friend of a friend, then transfered to the CBSA.

I totally agree with you. Though I give a person the benefit of the doubt on an online forum, I'll never act on it. If our roles were reversed, I'd accept my statement with a grain of salt but maybe investigate its possibility. There are enough news articles online to show that there are problems in the CBSA, any decision you make should be based on those and nor my statements. The only value my statements have in an anonymous online forum is to possible spark a person's curiosity to read more about the CBSA on more reliable sites than this one and then form your beliefs about the CBSA from those and not from this site, this site only serving to lead you to the more reliable sites.

No. She was visiting a friend of a friend for lunch at her house. My own knowledge of her time with me proves to me that the claims against her can't be true. As for what has been proven at a hearing already, the official statement that she did not know my last name or where I lived and that she could mention no local tourist spot were proven to be false, not to mention that I don't see how they were relevant to the charges against her even if they had been true! Add to that that to carry out a human trafficking 'investigation' with no effort to collect evidence even when the accused (of something not even related to the investigation at hand!) requests it to be very suspicious. Were they so incompetent as to not realize that collecting evidence might be a good idea in a human trafficking investigation? Just sayin'! Or did they collect evidence but hid it? Or are they so incompetent as to have believed to have collected evidence (i.e. an officer's statement), not actually understanding what evidence is? Either way, I'm flabbergasted that they came out of a human trafficking investigation without so much as a video from a plainclothed undercover police officer identifying who was selling whom! In other words, if someone in that house was in fact involved in human trafficking, the police likely did nothing more than detain them for deportation for working illegally in Canada in which case they could come back in a year. Way to go CBSA! That'll show those human traffickers! Law and order my ass! Now to be fair to the CBSA, my fiancée witnessed no indication of human trafficking. But then again, since she was there only for lunch, she can't really know for sure. All the CBSA had as a lead was an ad and a phone number that led to that house with no identifying feature linking the ad to her in any way. For all the CBSA knows it could have been a cruel prank played by a racist neighbour. As far as we can tell, the police never even identified the person to whom the phone number belonged nor the source of the online ad! Would that not have been a basic piece of evidence worth exploring in a human trafficking investigation!? Again, just sayin'.

Paranoid! 1. Met her through her cousin for dinner. Started off as a friendship. 2. She is not interested in Canadian citizenship. We'be always intended to settle in Hong Kong. I'd lived in China before. 4. Though she has business savvy, she certainly does not possess the skills to be an effective Chinese spy in Cabada, I h work in no sensitive field security-wise, and my father's security clearance is over 20 years old and expired recently. I'm sure it's probably all public knowledge by now and outdated to boot.

Our lawyer made it clear from the beginning that the tables were stacked against my fiancée due to the system. For example, she can't compel the accusing officers to take the stand to defend their own statements. Luckily for us, we have proof of negligence on the part of the police and the CBSA which should help the case. IRB is closed-doors. We've considered media, but not right now. She's too stressed about everything. Another big point in our favour is that the official statement claims that it all started as a human trafficking investigation yet absolutely no effort was made to collect evidence and the CBSA's official statement itself confirms that they never pursued the collection of evidence even after my fiancée requested that they do!!! Even her lawyer raised her eyebrows at the fact that the police made no effort to collect evidence even when she asked them to do so when it was supposedly a human trafficking investigation! No video. No picture. No witness statement (and there were witnesses to ask!). No DNA! Nothing!

Proof that it is commonly accepted that Charter rights do not apply: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-difficulty-of-due-process-in-the-age-of-counterterrorism/article24579232/?service=mobile http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news/canada/2014/11/02/does_canada_border_services_agency_need_oversight.html http://www.news1130.com/2014/01/28/cbsa-detention-can-be-a-political-no-mans-land/ Proof that provincial departments are breaking ties with the CBSA: http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/british-columbia/metro-vancouver-transit-police-end-controversial-agreement-with-cbsa-1.2965863 http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news/canada/2014/08/29/ontario_reviewing_relations_with_border_agency.html I can't find the article of the feds criticizing the provinces for this, but I'll keep looking maybe.

Another area of similarity between the CPC and the Bloc Québécois is on the matter of decentralization to the provinces. I could even see an Ontario Party being formed that would work with the BQ to promote a policy of Federal official monolingualism in their respective provinces, decentralization of powers to the provinces, and respect for civil liberties. Akternatively, the Libertarian Party could play that role in Ontario.

To clarify, I'm not necessarily a sovereignist. However there is one policy area on which the Bloc Québécois is more fiscally conservative than any of the major federalist parties, and that is on the matter of language policy. Scott Reid, the Conservative incumbent for the riding of Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and the author of Lament for a Notion: the Life and Death of Canada's Bilingual Dream, proposes the idea of regional bilingualism in his book whereby Federal offices would follow a policy of official monolingualism in the dominant local language except 'where numbers warrant,' arguing correctly that it could save the taxpayer billions. His strong stance on the matter, though supported by many soft libertarians in the Conservative caucus, is still a minority belief at odds with the official policy of the Conservative Party supported by at least a small plurality if not majority of its members who support official bilingualism, which is one reason among others that Scott Reid is a backbench MP, another major reason being that he is one of the few Conservative MP's to have simetimes broken with the party when voting on laws that could infringe on civil liberties, though I'm unsure of his more recent record on that matter. In many respects, though he's a member of a Federalist party, his ideas are similar to those of the Bloc (which let's not forget originally separated from the Progressive Conservative Party). The Bloc has consistently opposed Federal laws that infringed on Civil liberties and its language policy is ironically similar to that of Canadians for Language Fairness (CLF), an organization that appears to have been inspired by Scott Reid's book and which ironically enough tends to attract francophobes in the same way that the Bloc probably attracts its share of anglophobes. If we can overlook the bigots that these two organizations attract, CLF and the Bloc do have similar beliefs on language policy. One difference is that CLF prefers a Federal policy of official monolingualism in the dominant local language whereas the Bloc prefers official monolingualism in the dominant provincial language. Though I prefer CLF's position of going by the dominant local language, I consider the Bloc's position as the next best which could still save the Government billions yearly. So when we consider the Bloc to be more fiscally conservative than the CPC on at least that point and far more supportive of civil liberties than the CPC is, isn't the Bloc ab option worth considering in Quebec in the absence of a competent Libertarian candidate?

Thanks.She'll be heading there by the end of November, and I in December. We'll be returning in January to marry in Canada. Another reason to fight this is to ensure she's not turned away at the airport by some snotty officer because he feels like it.

1. She did come as a tourist but is not trying to stay. She always intended to leave by November at the latest as is her right as a Hong Kong tourist who came to Canada in June (within her 6 month allowance as per Canadian law!). 2. As for getting emotional, the incompetence of this CBSA officers have cost us over 4k in lawyers' fees, gotels, transport, foid, etc. Not to mention many wasted hours. So yeah, I'm a little emotional about CBSA incompetence that indirectly affects Canadians like myself. You talk about protecting Canada from foreign threats. I'ce had to spend over 4k to protect my fiancée from the Canadian threat that is CBSA incompetence.

And speaking of this younger generation... of immigration ifficials, how about they do their jobs properly the first time so as to avoid false accusations in the first place?

She is footing at least half of the bill: her lawyer, transport, lodging, food, etc., but the CBSA and the IRB are footing the bill for their lawyer, etc. Are you saying that a randomly accused should foot the bill for all sides? Fine, as long as we change the laws to make it easier to sue once proven not guilty. Deal?

Good post. Getting to know our local candidates and voting for the best local candidate instead of party helps too.

And as I'd mentioned elsewhere, a little evidence collection would have saved the CBSA a whole lot of money in hearings Snr lawyers, not to mention that we are at least exploring the possibility of suing the CBSA for negligence. To write false statements into a oerson's record is even worse than just turning them away at the airport. It is equivalent to a cop lying and saying he saw the man with a gun when he didn't.

You're right, wrong wording. Removal order. If a person is a criminal wanted in his country, INTERPOL would know about it and would certainly pass the information on to the CBSA. Beyond that it's not up to a grumpy officer to detain someone at his whim and fancy especially when the evidence was readily available.

Still no Libertarian candidate in my riding. But unless my local CPC candidate is exceptionally competent and independent-minded, I'm exploring the possibility of the local Bloc candidate, not because I'm a sovereignist but because the Bloc does have some good ideas. For example, making all Federal offices in Quebec monolingual would save much money on bilingual services and might even prompt other provinces to follow suit by proposing that Federal offices in their provinces operate monolingually too. I have yet to find out where the block stands on the rights of foreign nationals to due process and the presumption of innocence though.

Migrants are very expensive. I have no idea how much the government has spent on my fiancée already all because it tried to save a buck in evidence collection and decided to write false statements into her official record some of which have already been proven false and much more yet to be proven false. And ahe's only a tourist in Canada at present. If tourists can be so expensive, I'd hate to see how expensive citizens can be!

By the way, we could marry tomorrow to get this all over with, but because of the nature of the allegations against her (I'm telling only half he story which is horrible enough), she does not want to marry me with a gun to her head and wants to go through with this to clear her nane. She used to suffer depression and some symptoms of PTSD in the past. It has all come back because of this and she will see a therapist the moment she returns to Hong Kong, all because of CBSA incompetence.

But there is a difference between sending someone home and detaining them with the intention of sending them home. The detention process itself is expensive to taxpayers. Now the CBSA had cut off her access to the outside world during her detention and had never expected someone on the outside to find her a lawyer, though they should have. She had given them my name and phone number and they never bothered calling it. Their own official notes confirm that they had my correct phone number. Since I'd found her a lawyer, they had to have a bond hearing, again expensive to taxpayers. Since they had recorded false statements in their records that my fiancée had proven to be false, the judge had no choice but to grant bond, and I paid it. Then there is the admissibility hearing, again expensive to taxpayers. And because my fiancée has plenty of evidence to prove her innocence, we will win, forcing the judge to dismiss the case. All of that money spent because the CBSA decided to be negligent in its duties and she will still be here. And here's the worst part. She was planning on leaving Canada in November at the latest anyway. So all of that taxpayer money spent to extradite her at taxpayers' expense in August only to fail to do so due to negligence when she was planning on leaving by the end of November at the latest anyway. Worse yet, this policy designed to protect Canadians wasted taxpayer dollars for nothing and drained this Canadian of his finances, all money that could have been saved had the police and the CBSA collected evidence as requested. The evidence would have cleared her name within minutes of her interception. A few witness statements and a phone call to an alibi would have sufficed. Heck, even DNA and fingerprint collection would have been less expensive and faster! Or cheaper yet, a plain-clothed undercover officer with a hidden video camera. With that she she would not have bothered fighting her extradition had she been guilty and the police would never have detained her if innocent. How much would a simple video have cost, really? Her case proves that neglecting to collect evidence to save money does not in fact save money but makes the process even more expensive. We're planning on marrying in January, and she'll be legally allowed to work in Canada within three months after that. So all of this hell accomplished nothing but impoverished government coffers, our coffers, and she can still come here. Add to that that her respect for Canadian human rights have gone down the tube as have mine. She has money and contacts in Hong Kong who already know her situation. How do you think word of this kind of thing will affect Canada's tourism industry? She used to operate a bag factory with her ex-husband and had written articles for Hong Kong papers in the past. Her brother owns a villa which he rents out for money and is surrounded by influential contacts in Hubei. Her father is a retired senior engineer with contacts of his own. Even if her experience costs Canada only a handful of tourists, that is a few tourists less. Now multiply that by the number of innocents who have likely been extradited all because a CBSA officer neglected to check a simple piece of evidence, in some cases maybe needing nothing more than a witness statement to prove a person's innocence. She has no need to be in Canada. She came here only to be with me temporarily. We were initially planning on moving to Hong Kong and marrying there in January but she is now considering opening a business in Canada instead to give my mother time to adjust, so now planning on marrying in Canada in January. So what did all this accomplish that could not have been accomplished at far less cost by a simple plain-clothed undercover police officer with a hidden video camera and without harassing the innocent? Or was I traitor to the Reich for having gotten her a lawyer and not allowed her extradition on bogus charges to go as planned? You tell me.

As far as I'm concerned, the CBSA should not be allowed to detain anyone except on a criminal charge. If it warrants detention, then must logically warrant a criminal charge. If it does not warrant a criminal charge, then how can it warrant detention? If working in Canada without a visa warrange detention for extradition, then it should be recognized as a criminal charge with all of the rights that go with it. To grant the CBSA the power to detain without laying a criminal charge allows the CBSA to abuse its power and weasel out of it. It can detain someone for extradition and say that it's just an administrative matter and therefore due process and the right to the presumption of innocence don't apply.

Of course it's not good because balance of probabilities is far more subjective, not requiring concrete proof but rather the judge's opinion based on what is available. As a result, whereas lack of evidence would force a criminal judge to dismiss the case out of hand, it requires the IRB judge to force a hearing for the accused to prove his innocence. Even if he can prove his innocence and has no doubt that he can, he still has to go through the costly process of doing so, the onus being on him to prove the charge to be false. Worse yet, since he has no right to the presumption of innocence, suing for compensation is extremely difficult short of gross incompetence or negligence on the part of the CBSA. That's the part we're uncertain if. We can prove negligence on the part of the CBSA, but maybe not enough to sue as would have been the case for a criminal charge.

And the biggest problem with a balance of probabilities is its subjectivity, to be eine and determined according to the judge's opinion essentially and not on hard evidence and witness statements.

What some people don't realize is that on Canada, while a criminal charge comes with the presumption of innocence, an admissibility hearing is based on the balance of probabilities. A foreign national could be acquitted of a crime in criminal court due to lack of evidence but still be ordered extradited or deported by the IRB due to a balance of probabilities.