Salu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
This page is a summary and commentary on a publicly available court decision, written for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship with Azimi Law, regardless of how specific or applicable it may seem to your situation.
This summary may be incomplete, simplified, or not reflect the most current state of the law — the decision may be appealed, distinguished, or overtaken by later rulings. Independently verify this case against the official decision before relying on it. Nothing here guarantees the outcome of any other matter, including yours.
Do not rely on this page to make decisions about your own situation. Consult a licensed lawyer, or contact Azimi Law to discuss your situation directly.
The Facts
In December 2021 the applicant was charged with fraud and theft, each over $5,000, over workplace transactions. The case went through diversion and a joint submission for a conditional discharge after restitution, with the immigration consequences of a conviction in mind. In June 2022, applying to extend her study permit, she answered 'no' to the question whether she had ever been charged with a criminal offence. The Immigration Division found her inadmissible under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. She argued that the answer was not material, that intent was needed, and that an honest mistake applied, relying on evidence of ADHD.
What the Court Decided
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Immigration Division's decision transparent, intelligible and justified. Materiality is a low bar: the undisclosed charges could have affected how the extension was handled, and it did not matter that they might have been discovered some other way or that the result might have been the same. Intent to deceive is not required. On the innocent-mistake exception, it was reasonable to find she knew or should have known of the charges, since she had attended court, understood the matter concerned theft, and had been told of the charges. The medical evidence did not show her condition prevented her from understanding, and the Court declined to reweigh it. No question was certified.
Disclosure questions about charges, refusals and removals catch many people out, particularly when a matter ended in diversion or a discharge. This decision is a clear statement of how narrow the innocent-mistake argument is and how low the materiality threshold is, and a useful warning before anyone answers a form question from memory.
Does This Affect You?
- ✓You answered 'no' to a question about criminal charges on a permit extension while a charge or diversion matter was open.
- ✓You think a medical or cognitive condition explains an incorrect answer on an immigration form.
- ✓You believe an omission cannot be a problem because the authorities could have found the information themselves.
Key Takeaways
- A charge is not the same as a conviction on a form that asks about charges, and a diversion or conditional discharge does not remove the duty to disclose.
- The materiality test is low and does not depend on whether the application would have been refused.
- The innocent-mistake exception is narrow and needs evidence showing it was objectively reasonable not to know.