Resurfaced ruling shows child porn convict shielded from quick deportation
A 2024 Federal Court decision granting an Indian immigrant convicted of possessing child pornography the right to appeal his deportation has resurfaced following a National Post column.
A 2024 Federal Court decision granting an Indian immigrant convicted of possessing child pornography the right to appeal his deportation has resurfaced following a National Post column that highlights ongoing concerns about leniency in Canada’s immigration and criminal justice systems.
In the case of Navinder Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 43, Justice Sébastien Grammond ruled that the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) had unreasonably denied Singh’s appeal rights.
Singh, a former temporary foreign worker, was arrested in March 2018 at the Canada-U.S. border while attempting to “flagpole”—exiting and re-entering Canada to activate his permanent resident status.
During this attempt, border officers discovered 19 videos of child sexual abuse, involving infants and young children, on his phone.
According to federal court documents, Singh was “referred to secondary examination, because child pornography was found on his cell phone. He was eventually convicted and, on March 23, 2021, he was sentenced to six months less a day in jail and three years’ probation.”
The sentence was deliberately set below six months to avoid triggering automatic deportation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for “serious criminality,” which applies to sentences of six months or more.
Despite this, the Immigration Division issued a removal order, finding him inadmissible.
The IAD dismissed his appeal, but the Federal Court in January 2024 found the IAD’s reasoning on visa validity flawed, allowing the judicial review and remanding the case.
The decision gained renewed attention after a December 17 opinion column by National Post columnist Jamie Sarkonak, who criticized the case as an example of an “immigration discount”—where judges reduce sentences to mitigate deportation risks for non-citizens.
Sarkonak argued that the system failed to screen for cultural attitudes toward child abuse and allowed Singh to remain in Canada, with his appeal ongoing and a hearing scheduled for January.
This comes amid the broader context of Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner’s private member’s bill, C-220, introduced in 2025 to amend the Criminal Code.
The bill seeks to prohibit courts from considering immigration consequences during sentencing, aiming to close the so-called immigration discount loophole.
Rempel Garner, representing Calgary Nose Hill, has cited cases like Singh’s to argue for stricter enforcement, though the Liberal government has opposed the bill, stating there is insufficient evidence of widespread misuse.
Singh’s case remains active, with no final deportation decision issued.