Supreme Court of Canada grants woman chance to appeal immigration decision
The Supreme Court of Canada and Justice and Confederation Building are pictured in Ottawa on Monday, June 3, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick
OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada says a woman from Albania should have another chance to argue her immigration case after being denied an appeal due to an expired visa.
In March 2018, Dorinela Pepa came to Canada on a permanent resident visa as a dependent child of her father.
She married shortly before arriving in Canada and, because of the change in her circumstances, her case went through further review.
An admissibility hearing before the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board began in September 2018.
After the hearing, the Immigration Division ordered Pepa removed from Canada.
The Immigration Appeal Division of the board found Pepa had no right to appeal because her visa had already expired when the removal order was issued.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 27, 2025.
Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
16 minutes ago
- CTV News
‘We're on the side of kids': Alberta premier pushes back on court injunction against law banning doctors from providing gender-affirming care to youth
Danielle Smith said she welcomes a debate in court after an Alberta judge put a hold on a provincial law that bans doctors from providing gender-affirming care to youth on Friday. On her Saturday radio show, Your Province, Your Premier, Danielle Smith said she believed her government's case was solid, measured, evidence-based – and on the side of young patients that Justice Allison Kuntz said faced 'irreparable harm' if she didn't issue a temporary injunction against the law before it fully came into effect. 'The evidence shows that singling out health care for gender diverse youth and making it subject to government control will cause irreparable harm to gender diverse youth by reinforcing the discrimination and prejudice they are already subjected to,' Kuntz wrote in the judgment. The law, passed late last year but not fully in effect, would have prevented doctors from providing treatment such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy to those under 16. 'I think the court was in error,' Smith said. 'That's part of the reason why we're taking it to court. The court had said there will be irreparable harm if the law goes ahead. I feel the reverse. I feel there will be irreparable harm to children who get sterilized at the age of 10 years old – and so we want those kids to have their day in court. 'We want those who were counselled to have sex change operations prematurely who now feel like they weren't protected to be able to be witnesses so we don't make these kinds of mistakes.' Kuntz wrote that denying access to this care not only risks causing youth emotional harm but also exposes them to permanent physical changes that don't match their gender identity. 'Intentionally or not, the ban will signal that there is something wrong with or suspect about having a gender identity that is different than the sex you were assigned at birth,' Kuntz wrote. 'Gender diverse youth will bear the entire burden of that speculation.' Smith said there's a long history of governments making decisions that have caused harm. 'We had a sterilization of those who were committed to mental institutions that we had to do a major payout on,' she said. 'There are Indigenous women who are challenging their sterilization that happened at the hands of doctors that they want to make a criminal code provision on that–we shouldn't be capricious in taking away a person's right to have children. 'So we want to battle this out,' she added.' And the way you do that is you go to the higher levels of court.' Last month, the Canadian Medical Association and three Alberta-based doctors launched a legal case challenging the constitutionality of the bill, arguing it violates their Charter right to freedom of conscience. Alberta's other two pieces of transgender legislation — banning transgender women from competing in women's sports and preventing youth under 16 from changing their name or pronouns in the school system without parental consent — have yet to be challenged in court. The education bill also requires parents to opt in for their children to receive lessons in school on sexuality, sexual orientation and gender identity. 'Demonizing vulnerable kids': Nenshi Opposition NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi said in a statement that his party was pleased to see the court decision, calling it a 'great day for young Albertans who simply want to live authentically and safely.' 'The court has determined what we already knew that this ban could cause irreparable harm to gender diverse young Albertans,' Nenshi said. 'This was never about doing the right thing: it was always about demonizing vulnerable kids to boost Danielle Smith's political fortunes.' LGBTQ+ advocacy groups Egale Canada and the Skipping Stone Foundation took the case to court, and in a statement Egale said the decision was a 'historic win.' Also listed as applicants in the case are five transgender youth who will be directly affected. Egale's legal director Bennett Jensen said Friday that the decision was a 'huge relief' for the youth involved. '(The legislation) does not solve any real issues in the medical system,' Jensen said in an interview. 'It simply creates them and targets an already very vulnerable, small group of young people with further discrimination, and that's what the judge found.' Despite the Friday decision, Smith expressed confidence moving forward. 'We actually think we've got a very solid case,' she said. 'We think we've been measured, we think we've been evidence-based, and we think we're on the side of kids. 'So we want to see how long that process will play out, but we think it's really important for these issues to be debated in court.' With files from The Canadian Press and Aaron Sousa
Global News
an hour ago
- Global News
‘Alligator Alcatraz': Crowds line Florida highway to protest deportation camp
A coalition of groups, ranging from environmental activists to Native Americans advocating for their ancestral homelands, converged outside an airstrip in the Florida Everglades Saturday to protest the imminent construction of an immigrant detention center. Hundreds of protesters lined part of U.S. Highway 41 that slices through the marshy Everglades — also known as Tamiami Trail — as dump trucks hauling materials lumbered into the airfield. Cars passing by honked in support as protesters waved signs calling for the protection of the expansive preserve that is home to a few Native tribes and several endangered animal species. Christopher McVoy, an ecologist, said he saw a steady stream of trucks entering the site while he protested for hours. Environmental degradation was a big reason why he came out Saturday. But as a South Florida city commissioner, he said concerns over immigration raids in his city also fueled his opposition. 6:31 Canadian dies in ICE custody. What we know so far 'People I know are in tears, and I wasn't far from it,' he said. Story continues below advertisement Florida officials have forged ahead over the past week in constructing the compound dubbed as 'Alligator Alcatraz' within the Everglades' humid swamplands. The government fast-tracked the project under emergency powers from an executive order issued by Gov. Ron DeSantis that addresses what he views as a crisis of illegal immigration. That order lets the state sidestep certain purchasing laws and is why construction has continued despite objections from Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava and local activists. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy The facility will have temporary structures like heavy-duty tents and trailers to house detained immigrants. The state estimates that by early July, it will have 5,000 immigration detention beds in operation. The compound's proponents have noted its location in the Florida wetlands — teeming with massive reptiles like alligators and invasive Burmese pythons — make it an ideal spot for immigration detention. 'Clearly, from a security perspective, if someone escapes, you know, there's a lot of alligators,' DeSantis said Wednesday. 'No one's going anywhere.' 3:07 'These aren't the criminals': L.A. mayor urges Trump administration to stop ICE raids Under DeSantis, Florida has made an aggressive push for immigration enforcement and has been supportive of the federal government's broader crackdown on illegal immigration. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has backed 'Alligator Alcatraz,' which DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said will be partially funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Story continues below advertisement But Native American leaders in the region have seen the construction as an encroachment onto their sacred homelands, which prompted Saturday's protest. In Big Cypress National Preserve, where the airstrip is located, 15 traditional Miccosukee and Seminole villages, as well as ceremonial and burial grounds and other gathering sites, remain. Others have raised human rights concerns over what they condemn as the inhumane housing of immigrants. Worries about environmental impacts have also been at the forefront, as groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity and the Friends of the Everglades filed a lawsuit Friday to halt the detention center plans. 'The Everglades is a vast, interconnected system of waterways and wetlands, and what happens in one area can have damaging impacts downstream,' Friends of the Everglades executive director Eve Samples said. 'So it's really important that we have a clear sense of any wetland impacts happening in the site.' 0:58 'Where is the judicial warrant?' Chaos erupts as ICE detains NYC mayoral candidate Brad Lander Bryan Griffin, a DeSantis spokesperson, said Friday in response to the litigation that the facility was a 'necessary staging operation for mass deportations located at a preexisting airport that will have no impact on the surrounding environment.' Story continues below advertisement Until the site undergoes a comprehensive environmental review and public comment is sought, the environmental groups say construction should pause. The facility's speedy establishment is 'damning evidence' that state and federal agencies hope it will be 'too late' to reverse their actions if they are ordered by a court to do so, said Elise Bennett, a Center for Biological Diversity senior attorney working on the case. The potential environmental hazards also bleed into other aspects of Everglades life, including a robust tourism industry where hikers walk trails and explore the marshes on airboats, said Floridians for Public Lands founder Jessica Namath, who attended the protest. To place an immigration detention center there makes the area unwelcoming to visitors and feeds into the misconception that the space is in 'the middle of nowhere,' she said. 'Everybody out here sees the exhaust fumes, sees the oil slicks on the road, you know, they hear the sound and the noise pollution. You can imagine what it looks like at nighttime, and we're in an international dark sky area,' Namath said. 'It's very frustrating because, again, there's such disconnect for politicians.'
Toronto Sun
an hour ago
- Toronto Sun
Trump says he will move aggressively to undo nationwide blocks on his agenda
Published Jun 28, 2025 • 5 minute read President Donald Trump exits the Oval Office for an event in the Rose Garden of the White House. MUST CREDIT: Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post Photo by Demetrius Freeman / The Washington Post An emboldened Trump administration plans to aggressively challenge blocks on the president's top priorities, a White House official said, following a major Supreme Court ruling that limits the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Government attorneys will press judges to pare back the dozens of sweeping rulings thwarting the president's agenda 'as soon as possible,' said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations. Priorities for the administration include injunctions related to the Education Department and the U.S. DOGE Service, as well as an order halting the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the official said. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,' President Donald Trump said Friday at a news conference in which he thanked by name members of the conservative high court majority he helped build. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Trump on Friday cast the narrowing of judicial power as a consequential, needed correction in his battle with a court system that has restrained his authority. Scholars and plaintiffs in the lawsuits over Trump's orders agreed that the high court ruling could profoundly reshape legal battles over executive power that have defined Trump's second term – even as other legal experts said the effects would be more muted. Some predicted it would embolden Trump to push his expansive view of presidential power. 'The Supreme Court has fundamentally reset the relationship between the federal courts and the executive branch,' Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, who has studied nationwide injunctions, said in a statement. 'Since the Obama administration, almost every major presidential initiative has been frozen by federal district courts issuing 'universal injunctions.'' Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Nationwide injunctions put a freeze on an action until a court can make a decision on its legality. They have became a go-to tool for critics of presidential actions in recent times, sometimes delaying for years the implementation of an executive order the court ultimately approves. Experts said the Supreme Court's ruling could make it more difficult and cumbersome to challenge executive actions. It could result in courts issuing a patchwork of rulings on presidential orders in different parts of the country. In the short term, the ruling is a setback for liberals who have gone to court to thwart Trump. But the decision could also ultimately constrain conservatives seeking broad rulings to rein in a future Democratic president. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Trump undertook a flurry of executive actions in the opening month of his term that ranged from dismantling government agencies to seeking the end of birthright citizenship. There have been more than 300 lawsuits seeking to block his executive actions. Federal district judges have issued roughly 50 rulings to date, temporarily holding up the administration's moves to cut foreign aid, conduct mass layoffs and fire probationary employees, terminate legal representation for young migrants, ban birthright citizenship, and more nationwide. Some of those rulings have been stayed by higher courts. The Supreme Court found Friday that federal district courts must limit their injunctions to the parties bringing the case, which could be individuals, organizations or states. They had previously been able to issue injunctions that applied to people not directly involved in cases. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The ruling came as part of a case challenging Trump's ban on birthright citizenship. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of that executive order. The justices left it to lower courts to determine whether a nationwide injunction might be a proper form of relief for states in some cases, like the ban on birthright citizenship, where the harm could be widespread. The court also did not forestall plaintiffs from seeking nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits. Smita Ghosh, a senior appellate counsel with the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive public interest law firm, said the ruling could be a blow to plaintiffs seeking to stymie Trump's executive orders. The CAC has filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of plaintiffs challenging the birthright citizenship ban. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'This approach will make it more difficult and more time-consuming to challenge unconstitutional executive practices, limiting courts' abilities to constrain unlawful presidential action at a time when many believe that they need it most,' Ghosh said. Many groups will pivot to filing class-action lawsuits to sidestep the ruling, she predicted, as some plaintiffs in the birthright citizenship lawsuit sought to do Friday. Such lawsuits allow individuals or groups to sue on behalf of a larger class of individuals who have suffered a similar harm from a government policy. It's likely courts will see more and more class- or mass-action lawsuits from cities, counties and states that realize they can no longer rely on litigation brought by others to advocate for their interests, said Jonathan Miller, chief program officer for the Public Rights Project, which is challenging several Trump policies. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'I think this decision will be perceived by this administration as a green light to more aggressively pursue its agenda, be bolder when it comes to compliance with injunction and its willingness to test the limits of the judiciary,' Miller said. Not everyone expected the ruling to have broad impacts. Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which has filed numerous challenges against Trump's agenda, called it a 'limited ruling' and said the court left open a number of routes for challenges against executive actions that could result in broad blocks on Trump's policies. Ed Whelan, a conservative attorney, was likewise skeptical. He wrote in a newsletter that 'the ruling is probably going to accomplish much less than many people celebrating it realize,' in part because plaintiffs would instead pursue more class-action lawsuits that would ultimately produce similar results as nationwide injunctions. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The administration on Friday trumpeted the decision at the White House as a victory in its broader fight against the judiciary. Officials frequently deride judges who rule against the administration as activists and obstructionists. Dozens of judges appointed by presidents of both parties have temporarily paused many of Trump's efforts, and data shows threats against the judiciary have risen since he took office. 'Americans are getting what they voted for, no longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said, standing beside Trump at the news conference. She added, 'These lawless injunctions … turned district courts into the imperial judiciary.' Both Democratic and Republican presidents have complained about the blocks, said Jesse Panuccio, a partner at the Boies Schiller Flexner law firm and a Justice Department official in the first Trump administration. 'I think the ruling is seismic for how the federal district courts have been doing business in the last 20 years or so because the universal injunction has become a fairly standard and – in my view – unlawful remedy in cases,' Panuccio said. NHL Columnists Columnists Toronto Raptors Toronto Maple Leafs
