A disturbing case reveals a struggle to deport a man with a documented history of violent crime. Internal concerns within the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) flagged him as a significant threat, potentially qualifying for a “Danger Opinion” – a crucial step towards removal from the country.
However, attempts to secure this opinion were repeatedly blocked by higher authorities. The rationale, according to a CBSA source, was shockingly blunt: his convictions for sexual assault weren’t deemed sufficient to warrant the “Danger” label.
The situation is further complicated by a pattern of lenient judicial rulings. Judges have consistently shown favor towards this individual, appearing to downplay the severity of his offenses and their potential for future harm.
Just last July, he pleaded guilty to violating probation and a peace bond, yet received a sentence of time served. This outcome, coupled with actions taken by the Guelph Crown attorney’s office, fueled concerns about a deliberate effort to allow him to remain free.
Crucially, the Crown withdrew several sexual assault charges. Had these charges proceeded to trial and resulted in conviction, they would have dramatically strengthened the case for a “Danger Opinion” and subsequent deportation.
Without that opinion, removal is impossible. The question raised is why prosecutors are consistently dropping serious charges, potentially shielding a dangerous individual from the consequences of his actions.
The core issue, as highlighted by the CBSA source, centers on the definition of “Danger” itself. Is a serial sexual deviant truly not considered a threat to public safety?
Guelph Police have explicitly stated their belief that this man poses a risk to the community, particularly to women, and expressed fears he would re-offend. This assessment came after his release led to immediate new charges – four counts of probation violation, disobeying a court order, and criminal harassment, all within 24 hours.
The CBSA’s official statement acknowledges the balancing act between the risk of return to a country of origin and the danger posed to Canada. If the risks faced in the individual’s home country outweigh the threat they pose domestically, deportation cannot proceed.
The agency maintains its commitment to removing inadmissible persons, prioritizing cases involving national security and serious crimes. However, criminal proceedings take precedence, meaning deportation cannot occur until all charges are resolved and any sentences served.
This case underscores a complex interplay of legal hurdles, prosecutorial decisions, and bureaucratic roadblocks, raising profound questions about public safety and the ability to remove individuals deemed a threat to the community.
