Playa del Carmen, Mexico's virtual guidebook written by locals
 

Go Back   www.Playa.info > General discussion > General - Playa del Carmen
FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-11-2014   #46 (permalink)
beachaholic
 
Nikky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Back to Montréal, Canada
Posts: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dijo View Post
appreciate your information. It's not an easy job dealing with the public, regardless of what you are doing.
you're welcome. Not an easy job indeed, but one of the most interesting job I have done so far! We meet and deal with people from all around the world, from the typical tourist to huge celebrities. I loved it.
Nikky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014   #47 (permalink)
beachaholic
 
Nikky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Back to Montréal, Canada
Posts: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by chula banana View Post
Canada does not have a grand jury system.

Most offences are "hybrid" offences which means that the prosecutor elects whether to proceed by indictment or by summary conviction. It does not really have anything to do with a preliminary inquiry, that is a red herring.

The election is not reflected on a person's criminal record, so an immigration officer has no real way of knowing whether or not the offence was summary or not.

But the Canadian law quoted refers to crimes that are "punishable" by way of indictment. That means most crimes, whether they were misdemeanours or not.
you're 100% right.
Nikky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014   #48 (permalink)
beachaholic
 
Nikky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Back to Montréal, Canada
Posts: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by jiffer View Post
Do you guys think the airline will charge extra to someone that is turned away at Cancun airport and is sent home on the next flight? I wonder how that is handled?
The person must pay for the return ticket, if not possible we pay it and we charge a penalty to the airline.
Nikky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014   #49 (permalink)
way into it
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikky View Post
The person must pay for the return ticket, if not possible we pay it and we charge a penalty to the airline.
Interesting. I wonder if someone bought a roundtrip ticket if they have to pay the airline extra? I can see this being a tug of war at the airport over this. I am one of those stubborn people that would tell them I am not paying anything extra.
jiffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014   #50 (permalink)
beachaholic
 
Nikky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Back to Montréal, Canada
Posts: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by jiffer View Post
Interesting. I wonder if someone bought a roundtrip ticket if they have to pay the airline extra? I can see this being a tug of war at the airport over this. I am one of those stubborn people that would tell them I am not paying anything extra.
If you have a return ticket there's a way to change the date, but really I don't remember if they charge extra. Departures weren't my favourite part of the job, there is so much paperwork to do when you send someone back home...I managed my colleagues to take care of departures LOL
Nikky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014   #51 (permalink)
way into it
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikky View Post
If you have a return ticket there's a way to change the date, but really I don't remember if they charge extra. Departures weren't my favourite part of the job, there is so much paperwork to do when you send someone back home...I managed my colleagues to take care of departures LOL
lol. I don't blame you. I would pass on that duty to.
jiffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014   #52 (permalink)
añejo
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by chula banana View Post
Canada does not have a grand jury system.

Most offences are "hybrid" offences which means that the prosecutor elects whether to proceed by indictment or by summary conviction. It does not really have anything to do with a preliminary inquiry, that is a red herring.

The election is not reflected on a person's criminal record, so an immigration officer has no real way of knowing whether or not the offence was summary or not.

But the Canadian law quoted refers to crimes that are "punishable" by way of indictment. That means most crimes, whether they were misdemeanours or not.
That portion of the Entry Regulations quoted by Nikky that is of interest here is section 2(b), which states in relevant part (as they say in court):

Quote:
Criminality
(2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for:
***
(b)
having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament;
***
Not being a Canadian citizen, I know only what I read - which may or may not be correct or current. So, if you're Canadian and know better, please step right in...

Here's what I think I know:
Because there are two methods of bringing (laying) criminal charges in Canada, as there are in the US, and those methods generally separate criminal charges into 'indictable offences' (generally classified as felonies) and 'summary offenses' (generally classified as misdemeanors), and because the regulation specifically refers only to crimes classified as 'indictable offenses' (generally, 'felonies') rather than to 'summary offenses' (generally, 'misdemeanors'), foreigners who have been convicted of 'summary offences' (misdemeanors) outside Canada do not appear to be subject to exclusion from entry into Canada under the provisions of this law as it is stated above.

And here is what I suspect might be worth looking into:
U2 Girl's friend who was excluded from entry to Canada because of a prior misdemeanor conviction might want to go over the actual wording of the regulation with his attorney to see if it actually applies to his specific case, or whether a border control officer overstepped the bounds of his authority by denying him entry based on what might have been a summary offense instead of the specified indictable offence, had it occurred in Canada. Could be interesting, assuming the law means just what it says - (it usually does).

Last edited by beam-eye; 03-11-2014 at 11:11 PM..
beam-eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014   #53 (permalink)
Life=Playa (almost)
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Playa del Carmen
Posts: 4,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by beam-eye View Post
That portion of the Entry Regulations quoted by Nikky that is of interest here is section 2(b), which states in relevant part (as they say in court):



Not being a Canadian citizen, I know only what I read - which may or may not be correct or current. So, if you're Canadian and know better, please step right in...

Here's what I think I know:
Because there are two methods of bringing (laying) criminal charges in Canada, as there are in the US, and those methods generally separate criminal charges into 'indictable offences' (generally classified as felonies) and 'summary offenses' (generally classified as misdemeanors), and because the regulation specifically refers only to crimes classified as 'indictable offenses' (generally, 'felonies') rather than to 'summary offenses' (generally, 'misdemeanors'), foreigners who have been convicted of 'summary offences' (misdemeanors) outside Canada do not appear to be subject to exclusion from entry into Canada under the provisions of this law as it is stated above.

And here is what I suspect might be worth looking into:
U2 Girl's friend who was excluded from entry to Canada because of a prior misdemeanor conviction might want to go over the actual wording of the regulation with his attorney to see if it actually applies to his specific case, or whether a border control officer overstepped the bounds of his authority by denying him entry based on what might have been a summary offense instead of the specified indictable offence, had it occurred in Canada. Could be interesting, assuming the law means just what it says - (it usually does).
Not necessary as I believe her direct quote was "F $%^ Canada".
u2girlie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2014   #54 (permalink)
way into it
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by u2girlie View Post
Not necessary as I believe her direct quote was "F $%^ Canada".
My brother had been to Canada many times to go scuba diving and never had a issue. But on his trip 2 years ago he was turned away at the border. His attitude now is Canada can stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
jiffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2014   #55 (permalink)
beachaholic
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Playa del Carmen
Posts: 423
Sorry beam-eye, it was a nice try, but there are NOT two ways of laying charges in Canada. (Well, technically there are, but not in the way you think).

Generally speaking, the police simply lay charges by swearing out a document called an information. The charge would be "assault" or "impaired driving" and not "assault prosecuted by way of indictment" or "assault by summary conviction".

As I said earlier, most offences are hybrid, meaning that the Crown has a choice as to whether to prosecute by way of indictment or by summary conviction. Hybrid offences are deemed to be indictable offences. The offence itself remains an indictable offence even if in a particular case the Crown chose the summary procedure. So even if a person was convicted of a misdemeanour in the US, unless it was one of those rare offences in the Criminal Code that is a straight summary offence, it is still an indictable offence under the Canadian rules for admissibility.

Last edited by chula banana; 03-12-2014 at 07:59 AM..
chula banana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2014   #56 (permalink)
añejo
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by chula banana View Post
Sorry beam-eye, it was a nice try, but there are NOT two ways of laying charges in Canada. (Well, technically there are, but not in the way you think)....
Oh, well, it was an interesting problem in hybrid Gallic-Arctic logic. Or something. Now if I can only figure out the cryptic code problem contributed by U2girlies' girlfriend 'F $%^ Canada'.

Let's see, it looks pretty straightforward - (hmmm, I think I recall naively saying this when starting on the last problem) - so, if the 'F' in the formula means 'if', and the '$' means 'dollar', and the '%' means 'percent', and the '^' means 'increase', and the 'Canada' means 'Canada', then we have this: 'If the dollar percent increases, then Canada', which could indicate some sort of financial escape-to-Canada algorithm. Now if only I knew what the financial escape laws were regarding entry to Canada... Ummm, I'll have to get back to you on that...
beam-eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2014   #57 (permalink)
añejo
 
Murrsay185's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 1,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by jiffer View Post
My brother had been to Canada many times to go scuba diving and never had a issue. But on his trip 2 years ago he was turned away at the border. His attitude now is Canada can stick it where the sun doesn't shine.
The Canadians I know that have the same problem have the same attitude.
Murrsay185 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2014   #58 (permalink)
way into it
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murrsay185 View Post
The Canadians I know that have the same problem have the same attitude.
I am sure that have that attitude also. I think the tit for tat game the US and Canada is playing is ridiculous
jiffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2014   #59 (permalink)
añejo
 
Murrsay185's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 1,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by jiffer View Post
I am sure that have that attitude also. I think the tit for tat game the US and Canada is playing is ridiculous
110% in agreement. You think the political BOZO's would get their act together and work it out. Instead they prefer to piss on each other at the expense of their own tourism.
Murrsay185 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2014   #60 (permalink)
beachaholic
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: midhurst ontario
Posts: 250
I know of someone who had a DUI in the US and was questioned at the Canadian Border. According to him, the Agent told him he could be refused admission at his discretion. In this case, he let him through. Second hand information, so not 100% sure of its accuracy.
playalong is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:40 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.