[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-294823-105":59,"doc-detail-294823-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","dorinela-pepa-applicants-memorandum-of-argument-in-the-supreme-court-of-canada","DORINELA PEPA - Applicant’s Memorandum of Argument - In the Supreme Court of Canada","","Applicant Dorinela Pepa files an Applicant’s Memorandum of Argument to seek leave to appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada. The memorandum outlines how administrative delays can cause loss of the right to appeal a removal order under s. 63(2) of IRPA, contrary to fairness and equal access to justice. It frames statutory interpretation issues about whether a PR visa holder’s expiry after entry should remove appeal rights, disputes the IAD’s approach to interpretation, and identifies supporting relevant case law and policy scheme arguments.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/dorinela-pepa-applicants-memorandum-of-argument-in-the-supreme-court-of-canada/294823/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/dorinela-pepa-applicants-memorandum-of-argument-in-the-supreme-court-of-canada/294823.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"supergirl","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-04","2026-09-18",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",14,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What main legal question does the memorandum raise?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"It raises whether a person’s right of appeal can be lost solely due to administrative delays in a way that undermines fairness and equal access to justice under Canada’s rule of law.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"How does the memorandum describe the effect of s. 63(2) of IRPA on PR visa holders?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"It states that PR visa holders are afforded the right to appeal a removal order and associated losses, but that interpreting the provision to treat an expired PR visa after entry as ending PR status would remove that right.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"What concerns does the memorandum express about how the Immigration Appeal Division interpreted s. 63(2)?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"It argues the IAD adopted an unreasonable interpretation by treating itself as bound by obiter statements from an earlier decision instead of ascertaining the provision’s meaning using modern principles of statutory interpretation.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},294823,1789706613,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":130,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},962088121634,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","SCC File No.    \nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA  \n(ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL)  \nBETWEEN:  \nDORINELA PEPA  \nAPPLICANT  \n(Appellant)  \nAND:  \nTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION  \nRESPONDENT  \n(Respondent)  \nAPPLICANT’S MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT  \n(Pursuant to Rule 25(1)(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada)  \nErica Olmstead  \nEdelmann & Company Law Corporation  \n905 – 207 West Hastings Street Vancouver, BC V6B 1H7  \nPhone: 604-646-4684  \nFax: 604-648-8043  \nEmail: [office@edelmann.ca](office@edelmann.ca)  \nMary Lam  \n\\#703 – 600 Sherbourne Street Toronto, Ontario M4X 1W4  \nPhone: 416 383 0266  \nFax: 416 383 0299  \n[Email:](Email: mary.lam@rogers.com)[ ](Email: mary.lam@rogers.com)[mary.lam@rogers.com](Email: mary.lam@rogers.com)  \nCounsel for the Applicant  \nAsha Gafar  \nDepartment of Justice  \n\\#400 – 120 Adelaide West Toronto, Ontario M5H 1T1  \nPhone: 647 256 0720  \nFax: 416 954 8982  \nEmail: [asha.gafar@justice.gc.ca](asha.gafar@justice.gc.ca)  \nCounsel for the Respondent  \nMichael Sobkin  \n331 Somerset St. W. Ottawa, Ontario K2P 0J8  \nPhone: 613-282-1712  \nFax: 613-288-2896  \n[Email:](Email: msobkin@sympatico.ca)[ ](Email: msobkin@sympatico.ca)[msobkin@sympatico.ca](Email: msobkin@sympatico.ca)  \nAgent for Counsel for the Applicant  \nChristopher M. Rupar  \nAttorney General of Canada  \nSuite 500, Room 557  \n50 O’Connor Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8  \nPhone: (613) 670-6290  \nFax: (613) 954-1920  \nEmail: [christopher.rupar@justice.gc.ca](christopher.rupar@justice.gc.ca)  \nAgent for Counsel for the Respondent  \nTable of Contents  \nPART I – OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................. 1  \nThe decision of the Immigration Division..................................................................................... 4  \nThe decision of the Immigration Appeal Division ....................................................................... 5  \nThe decision of the Federal Court ................................................................................................. 7  \nThe decision of the Federal Court of Appeal ............................................................................... 8  \nPART II – STATEMENT OF ISSUES ............................................................................................. 9  \nPART III – STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 9  \nA. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 9  \nB. Parliament did not intend for a PR visa holder to lose their right of appeal under s. 63(2)  \nof IRPA, where it expires after they enter Canada due to administrative delay in issuing a removal order....................................................................................................................... 10  \ni. Statutory Provision Text .................................................................................................... 10  \nii. The IAD’s unreasonable interpretation of s. 63(2) of IRPA ........................................... 11  \niii. Plain and Ordinary Meaning of Expiry Date – Policy and Scheme of the Act ............. 12  \niv. Absurdities ........................................................................................................................... 13  \nv. Relevant case law supports that the time to consider the expiry date is at the POE .... 15  \nC. Is it unreasonable for an administrative decision maker to find itself bound by obiter  \nstatements in an earlier court decision when interpreting a statutory provision, rather than ascertaining the meaning of the provision itself in accordance with the modern principles of statutory interpretation that are indicative of Parliament’s intent? ........... 19  \nPART IV – COSTS ...........................................................................................................","cbCaiuvMwOyiPWxB","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiuvMwOyiPWxB","pdf",374077,25,"English","# PART I – OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS\n## A. Overview\n# PART II – STATEMENT OF ISSUES\n# PART III – STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT\n## A. Introduction\n## B. Parliament did not intend for a PR visa holder to lose their right of appeal under s. 63(2) of IRPA\n## C. Statutory interpretation and obiter statements issue","[{\"question\":\"What main legal question does the memorandum raise?\",\"answer\":\"It raises whether a person’s right of appeal can be lost solely due to administrative delays in a way that undermines fairness and equal access to justice under Canada’s rule of law.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the memorandum describe the effect of s. 63(2) of IRPA on PR visa holders?\",\"answer\":\"It states that PR visa holders are afforded the right to appeal a removal order and associated losses, but that interpreting the provision to treat an expired PR visa after entry as ending PR status would remove that right.\"},{\"question\":\"What concerns does the memorandum express about how the Immigration Appeal Division interpreted s. 63(2)?\",\"answer\":\"It argues the IAD adopted an unreasonable interpretation by treating itself as bound by obiter statements from an earlier decision instead of ascertaining the provision’s meaning using modern principles of statutory interpretation.\"}]","DORINELA PEPA - Applicant’s Memorandum of Argument - In the Supreme Court of Canada | PDF",63]