Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Charter of Rights – Constitutional law – Citizenship – Judicial review – Issue estoppel – Adequate alternative remedy – Whether the Court of Appeal erred: (1) in its application of issue estoppel; (2) in declining jurisdiction to provide a declaration regarding citizenship status by invoking doctrine of adequate alternative remedy; (3) in failing to deal with alternative request for constitutional relief, and; (4) in deciding that the onus is on the applicant to apply for citizenship of another country before he can seek protection – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 6-7.

The applicant, Deepan Budlakoti, was born in Canada. His parents were Indian nationals. They all became permanent residents and in 1995 the parents were granted Canadian citizenship. No application for citizenship was made on the applicant’s behalf. While a permanent resident, the applicant was convicted of breaking and entering, weapons trafficking, possession of a firearm while prohibited, and trafficking in narcotics. He was sentenced to three years in jail. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration investigated the applicant’s status, finding him to be a permanent resident, not a Canadian citizen, and declared him to be inadmissible to Canada because of the offences. On that basis, the Immigration and Refugee Board granted the Minister’s application permitting the removal of the applicant from Canada. On the issue of citizenship, the Board found that the applicant was born during his parents’ employment with the Indian High Commission and therefore he was not a citizen under the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29. As a result, the removal order became effective. The Federal Court dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to commence a judicial review of the Board’s decision. The applicant remains in Canada subject to certain bonds and conditions imposed when he was released from custody. He has never applied to the Minister for citizenship under the Citizenship Act on any grounds. Neither has he ever applied for Indian citizenship. In 2013, the applicant applied anew to the Federal Court for a declaration that he is a Canadian citizen.

The Federal Court denied the application for a declaration that the applicant is a Canadian citizen. The Federal Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the applicant’s appeal.