Certain criminal offences can lead to deportation from Canada, particularly where they meet the threshold of serious criminality under immigration law. Common examples include impaired driving (DUI), assault and other violent offences, theft and fraud, drug-related offences such as possession for the purpose of trafficking, and weapons offences.
In most cases, the risk depends on the maximum penalty for the offence, the sentence imposed, and the individual’s immigration status. Even a single conviction may be enough to trigger inadmissibility and removal from Canada in certain circumstances.
| Offence | Category | Why It Triggers Inadmissibility |
|---|---|---|
| Impaired driving (DUI) | Serious criminality | Max penalty 10 years |
| Assault causing bodily harm | Violent offence | Hybrid/indictable |
| Drug trafficking | Serious criminality | High max penalty |
| Fraud over $5,000 | Financial crime | Indictable offence |
| Weapons offences | Public safety | High penalties |
Canadian immigration law divides non-citizens into two primary categories: permanent residents and foreign nationals. While permanent residents have stronger legal protections and deeper ties to Canada, their status is not guaranteed. Both groups may be removed if found inadmissible under immigration law.
Foreign nationals, including international students, temporary workers, visitors, and individuals without status, face a significantly lower inadmissibility threshold. This means that conduct which may appear relatively minor in criminal court can carry disproportionately serious immigration consequences.
The distinction becomes critical as soon as charges are laid. The same offence can result in very different outcomes depending on the person’s immigration status. For one individual, it may lead to fines or probation. For another, it may trigger removal proceedings and the loss of the right to remain in Canada.
Several factors determine how a criminal charge affects immigration status:
Because of these variables, a defence strategy that focuses only on criminal penalties, without considering immigration consequences, may fail to address the most serious risk in the case.
The concept that links criminal law to immigration consequences is inadmissibility. A person who is found inadmissible may be denied entry to Canada or removed from the country.
The primary legal authority governing this area is the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)
Section 36 of IRPA establishes that both permanent residents and foreign nationals may be found inadmissible for serious criminality, while foreign nationals may also be inadmissible for the broader category of criminality.
This distinction is critical. It determines:
| Category | Applies To | Threshold | Immigration Consequences |
|---|---|---|---|
| Criminality | Foreign nationals only | Conviction (including less serious offences) | Possible inadmissibility, refusal of entry or status |
| Serious criminality | PR + foreign nationals | 10-year max penalty OR 6+ month sentence | Deportation, loss of appeal rights |
For non-citizens, a criminal case is never just about criminal penalties. The key issue is whether the outcome will affect the right to remain in Canada.
This means every decision — from plea negotiations to sentencing — must be evaluated with immigration consequences in mind.
For non-citizens, the defence strategy must be built with immigration risk in mind from the very beginning. What appears to be a favourable outcome in criminal court—such as a guilty plea with a reduced sentence —may still trigger serious immigration consequences, including inadmissibility or removal.
In many cases, avoiding a conviction altogether, or resolving the matter in a way that does not trigger “serious criminality,” becomes the primary objective, and this is something a skilled criminal defence lawyer will prioritize from the outset.
“For non-citizens, the real risk in a criminal case is often not the sentence; it is whether the outcome puts their right to stay in Canada in jeopardy.” — Brian Brody, Criminal Defence Lawyer
Many people assume that the consequences of immigration depend primarily on the sentence they actually receive. In reality, the first and often most important question is: what is the maximum penalty for the offence?
Under section 36(1) of the IRPA, serious criminality includes:
This means that even where a person receives a relatively lenient outcome, such as a fine, probation, or a short custodial sentence, they may still face deportation if the offence itself falls within the “10 years or more” category.
Immigration law focuses on how Parliament classifies an offence, not how serious the individual case may appear.
As a result:
This distinction is often overlooked, but it is critical in assessing immigration risk.
Impaired driving is one of the clearest examples of how changes in criminal law have reshaped immigration risk in Canada.
In recent years, amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada significantly increased the maximum penalties for impaired driving offences. Under section 320.19 , many impaired driving offences now carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.
As a result, working with a DUI lawyer or impaired driving lawyer is especially important, as even a first offence can carry immigration consequences far beyond the criminal penalties.
For permanent residents and foreign nationals, a DUI charge is no longer a “routine” criminal matter. It can lead to:
The immigration analysis must begin at the earliest stage of the case. The key issue is not only whether there will be a conviction, but whether that conviction will place the individual within a category that justifies removal from Canada.
One of the most important and often overlooked features of Canadian immigration law is that foreign nationals are subject to a lower inadmissibility threshold than permanent residents.
In criminal court, some offences may appear less serious when treated summarily, but immigration law does not always follow that distinction.
As a result, individuals such as:
may face immigration consequences from offences they initially believed were relatively minor. What appears manageable in criminal court can carry far more serious implications under immigration law. A criminal defence lawyer can help identify these risks early and develop a strategy that minimizes both criminal and immigration consequences.
Hybrid offences create a unique risk because immigration law focuses on how the offence is classified in legislation, rather than how it is prosecuted in a particular case.
This means that even where the Crown proceeds summarily, the offence may still be treated as indictable for the purpose of assessing inadmissibility. For foreign nationals, this significantly expands the range of situations in which immigration consequences may arise.
Once a conviction is entered, immigration enforcement can begin with little delay. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) has the authority to assess whether a person has become inadmissible and to initiate enforcement proceedings.
Under section 44(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), an officer may prepare a report where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person in Canada is inadmissible. If the report is accepted, the matter may proceed to an admissibility hearing or result in the issuance of a removal order.
At this stage, legal guidance from a criminal lawyer becomes essential, as options may become limited once enforcement proceedings begin.
The transition from criminal conviction to immigration enforcement is often faster than many individuals expect. Once the immigration process begins, the focus shifts from the criminal offence itself to whether the individual is legally allowed to remain in Canada.
In practical terms, this process may include:
For permanent residents, there may be an opportunity to challenge the outcome. However, that opportunity is limited and may disappear depending on the nature of the offence and the sentence imposed.
A common misconception is that permanent residents always retain the right to appeal a removal order. In reality, that right is restricted in cases involving serious criminality.
Where a person has been found inadmissible on the basis of serious criminality and has received a sentence of six months or more in Canada, the right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division may no longer be available.
Serious criminality can also eliminate appeal rights in other circumstances, including convictions outside Canada or conduct punishable in Canada by a maximum term of at least 10 years.
A permanent resident may lose the right to appeal where:
This is one of the most significant legal consequences of a criminal conviction, as it may remove the ability to challenge a removal order altogether.
A criminal charge on its own does not automatically make a person inadmissible in the same way that a conviction does. However, it would be incorrect to assume that charges have no immigration consequences.
Pending charges, arrests, and ongoing proceedings may still influence immigration decisions, particularly in the context of applications, renewals, or admissibility assessments.
Even without a conviction, criminal charges may:
Failure to disclose such information can result in a finding of misrepresentation, which is itself a separate ground of inadmissibility.
In cases involving non-citizens, the legal strategy may differ significantly from that of a typical criminal matter. Rather than focusing solely on minimizing the sentence, the primary objective is often to avoid a conviction that could trigger inadmissibility.
This requires a careful and coordinated approach, taking into account both the criminal law implications and the potential immigration consequences.
An outcome that seems favourable in criminal court may still trigger immigration consequences. For that reason, a defence strategy must be developed with both systems in mind from the outset.
In practice, this may involve:
If you are a permanent resident or foreign national facing criminal charges, your case should be approached with immigration consequences in mind from the earliest stage.
The Mass Tsang team regularly represents clients whose cases involve both criminal and immigration risk, including offences such as:
Their work focuses not only on defending against the charge but on protecting the client’s ability to remain in Canada.
Early legal advice can make a critical difference in how a case is resolved — and in whether a person is able to remain in the country.
Yes. Impaired driving (DUI) is now considered a serious criminal offence under Canadian law because it carries a maximum penalty of up to 10 years. This means that even a first offence can lead to inadmissibility and possible removal from Canada, especially for permanent residents and foreign nationals.
Criminal charges alone do not automatically make a person inadmissible. However, they can still impact immigration applications, renewals, and credibility with immigration authorities. In some cases, charges must be disclosed and may delay or complicate immigration decisions.
Serious criminality generally applies to offences punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years or more, or to offences for which a person receives a sentence of more than 6 months. This classification can lead to deportation and may eliminate the right to appeal a removal order.
Yes. Permanent residents can lose their status if found inadmissible for serious criminality. In some cases, they may also lose the right to appeal, particularly if the sentence imposed is six months or more.
Yes. Foreign nationals face a lower threshold for inadmissibility. This means that even less serious offences can result in refusal of entry, loss of status, or removal from Canada.
Both matter, but immigration law often focuses on the maximum possible penalty for the offence rather than the actual sentence imposed. Even a relatively lenient sentence can still lead to serious immigration consequences if the offence falls within the “10 years or more” category.
In many cases, yes. Avoiding a conviction is often the most effective way to reduce immigration risk. This is why defence strategies for non-citizens are typically focused on resolving the case without triggering inadmissibility.
