2018年4月6日，印度籍卡车司机Jaskirat Singh Sidhu在萨斯喀彻温省高速公路的一个十字路口因疏忽闯了停牌，直接撞向一辆载满洪堡野马青少年冰球队队员的大巴车，导致16人死亡13人受伤。2019年3月，萨省法院判定Sidhu的16项危险驾驶导致死亡以及13项危险驾驶导致身体伤害的罪名成立，数罪并罚判处8年监禁（R v Sidhu, 2019 SKPC 19）。然而，身为永久居民的Sidhu除了有期徒刑之外，在他服刑完毕之后还将面临一个更加严重的后果：因严重犯罪导致的不可入境。IRPA s. 36(1)(a)如是规定：
Serious criminality
36 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality for
(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, or of an offence under an Act of Parliament for which a term of imprisonment of more than six months has been imposed;
Sidhu没有加拿大公民身份。他的两类罪行都达到了可判处至少10年的标准，并且实际获刑也远超6个月，因此将触发IRPA第36(1)(a)段的不可入境条文。下一步流程将由CBSA的边境官准备不可入境报告。由于不可入境报告的法律依据基于IRPA s. 44，所以业界也俗称“s. 44 report”。其中第(1)和第(2)款条文如下：
Preparation of report
44 (1) An officer who is of the opinion that a permanent resident or a foreign national who is in Canada is inadmissible may prepare a report setting out the relevant facts, which report shall be transmitted to the Minister.
Referral or removal order
(2) If the Minister is of the opinion that the report is well-founded, the Minister may refer the report to the Immigration Division for an admissibility hearing, except in the case of a permanent resident who is inadmissible solely on the grounds that they have failed to comply with the residency obligation under section 28 and except, in the circumstances prescribed by the regulations, in the case of a foreign national. In those cases, the Minister may make a removal order.
根据s. 44(1)，边境官将基于Sidhu的相关事实撰写不可入境报告并提交给公安部部长，实际情况是提交给部长的受委人（Minister’s Delegate），即另一名高级边境官。根据s. 44(2)，如果部长的受委人认为报告具备充分理由（well-founded），他将把报告提交给隶属于移民及难民委员会（IRB）的移民处（ID）通过准入聆讯（admissibility hearing）完成仲裁。
Sidhu的律师（Michael Greene）采取的措施是请求CBSA边境官不要撰写这份不可入境报告——如果没有s. 44 report，就不会有后续的离境令。但是，边境官以及部长的受委人坚持根据s. 44(1)和(2)准备报告并将报告提交给ID，于是Sidhu的律师向联邦法院申请了针对这份不可入境报告的司法复核。聆讯于2023年9月23日进行，联邦法院于12月14日驳回了申请人的司法复核请求。这意味着s. 44 report合情合理。具体案件文书请参见Sidhu v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FC 1681。
Sidhu的律师在陈词中从多个方向论证了CBSA的决策不合理，总结其精髓，就是CBSA没有使用更加严格的六个Ribic/Chieu要素来判断是否应当撰写并提交不可入境报告。这六个要素包括：一、罪行的严重性；二、改过自新的可能性；三、在加拿大的时长以及安居程度；四、加拿大的家庭以及被迫离境给家庭带来的破坏；五、可获得的家庭和社区支持；六、回到印度后即将面临的困苦等。
联邦法院驳回了Sidhu的申请。关于CBSA在执行IRPA s. 44(1)和(2)的过程中可以行使多大范围的酌情权，联邦法院重申了以下四点（para 60，粗体字为笔者添加）：
Consequently, it is appropriate to restate the general principles applicable to the scope of the discretion contemplated by subsections 44(1) and (2) of the IRPA as follows:
The Honourable Chief Justice Crampton
1. The scope of discretion held by immigration officers under subsection 44(1) and by ministerial delegates under subsection 44(2) of the IRPA is very limited, especially in cases of serious criminality and organized criminality: Obazughanmwen, at paras 27 and 29.
2. In this context, immigration officers and ministerial delegates are simply on a fact-finding mission, no more, no less. Particular circumstances of the person, the offence, the conviction and the sentence are beyond the reach of those decision-makers: Obazughanmwen, at paras 31 and 39 (quoting Cha, at para 35). Such excluded personal circumstances include H&C considerations: Obazughanmwen, at paras 31 (quoting Cha, at paragraph 37) and 44-45; see also Lin v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 FC 862 at para 20 [Lin], aff’d 2021 FCA 81.
3. For greater certainty, the exercise contemplated by subsections 44(1) and (2) is an administrative screening function that is only meant to look into readily and objectively ascertainable facts concerning admissibility: Obazughanmwen, at para 37; see also paras 27 and 30.
4. These principles apply equally to foreign nationals and permanent residents: Obazughanmwen, at para 32; see also Lin, at paras 17-18. They also apply with equal force to sections 36 and 37 of the IRPA: Obazughanmwen, at para 41.
随着本案尘埃落定，案件下一步将进入ID的准入聆讯的仲裁程序，这个过程有如下两点需要注意。一、和CBSA一样，ID同样没有考虑人道同情（H&C）因素的管辖权或酌情权。二、由于Sidhu实际获刑超过6个月，根据IRPA s. 64(1)和(2)，他将无权向移民上诉处（IAD）申诉。所以，牛顿可以肯定，ID必然遵循IRPR s. 229(1)(c)对Sidhu下达递解离境令（deportation order）。Sidhu将面临被驱逐出境的命运，并在离境令生效时失去永久居民身份（IRPA s. 46(1)(c)）。
Sidhu可以尝试申请离境前风险评估（PRRA）。当年赖昌星申请庇护失败后就是通过申请PRRA拖延了多年滞留在加拿大的时间，一直到加拿大得到中国政府对其不执行酷刑或死刑的承诺后才执行离境令。但是Sidhu可能难以证明他在印度会面临危险或迫害，所以申请PRRA只能为他争取到短暂的时间，并不能真正使他留在加拿大。PRRA的法律依据见IPRA s. 112及s. 113。
另一条通道正如联邦法院在判决书中写的那样，Sidhu在失去永居身份后，可以向IRCC申请人道同情（H&C）考量（para 75）。牛顿认为，这是Sidhu留在加拿大的唯一可行的通道。
H&C的法律依据基于IRPA s. 25(1)：
Humanitarian and compassionate considerations — request of foreign national
25 (1) Subject to subsection (1.2), the Minister must, on request of a foreign national in Canada who applies for permanent resident status and who is inadmissible — other than under section 34, 35, 35.1 or 37 — or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, and may, on request of a foreign national outside Canada — other than a foreign national who is inadmissible under section 34, 35, 35.1 or 37 — who applies for a permanent resident visa, examine the circumstances concerning the foreign national and may grant the foreign national permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligations of this Act if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to the foreign national, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected.
Sidhu的H&C能否申请成功取决于他的H&C因素是否强大到能够克服他的不可入境的严重性。儿童的最佳利益（BIOC）是H&C中占权重较高的重要因素。根据CBC的报道，Sidhu有一个9个月大的有特殊医疗需求的孩子，他的希望还是有的。
牛顿将持续密切关注本案的进展。