In a surprising twist, a male U.K. resident facing deportation from Canada due to serious criminal charges has been granted a temporary reprieve. The reason? A judge raised concern regarding the use of gender-neutral pronouns in a government document, pondering if it infringed upon the man’s Charter rights. This unexpected inquiry was not solicited by either the defendant, Colin James Ewen, or the Crown.
On the brink of deportation, Ewen found himself in the Federal Court on June 6, making a desperate plea for a delay in his expulsion. As a result of the unexpected concern brought forth by Justice Richard Bell, Ewen was granted a stay, perplexing many, including government lawyer Nathan Joyal. The decision has caused a stir among lawyers and sparked interest within the Federal Court of Appeal.
Ewen’s trouble started back in October 2019 when the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) ruled for his deportation. He’d been found guilty of serious assault causing bodily harm back in the U.K., a felony recognized and weighed heavily in Canada, thus rendering him unfit to stay. Undeterred, Ewen contested the decision, arguing that the U.K. considered his charge “spent” and hence it should be disregarded. His efforts were futile. Further adding to his troubles, Ewen was arrested for assault in Ontario in March 2022.
During the hearing on June 6, Justice Bell flagged an issue which he felt needed addressing, though neither Ewen, who was representing himself, nor the government had previously mentioned it. He indicated that in a document submitted the day prior, the government occasionally used gender-neutral pronouns “they/them”, alongside male “he/him” pronouns, which he considered a potential issue under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Ewen, initially confused, agreed there was a hint of indignity to the use of the gender-neutral pronouns. Consequently, Justice Bell ordered a hearing adjournment and asked Ewen and government representatives to construct their arguments on whether the use of gender-neutral pronouns had infringed on Ewen’s Charter rights. The scheduled deportation was, therefore, postponed until this issue was resolved.
Following Bell’s unanticipated decision, there has been a buzz of intrigue among government lawyers and the Federal Court of Appeal. Montreal-based immigration attorney Stéphane Handfield, though not involved, noted he had never encountered anything similar in his 31-year practice.
Upon Bell’s suspension of Ewen’s deportation, government lawyers filed for an appeal against the judge’s order. They implored the Federal Court of Appeal to dismiss or declare the “new constitutional issue” irrelevant, arguing that it had no connection or factual basis in Ewen’s case.
The appeal also highlighted the inconvenience caused, with Ewen missing his planned flight, leading to probable delays due to restarting the removal process. Ewen’s case is set to be expedited by the Federal Court of Appeal and will be heard in mid-September.
