Dan6681

A US Citizen hit's a piece of property while driving a motor vehicle and does not report the damage. That person is reported to police and charged with leaving the scene of an accident. They are convicted of a misdemeanor and fined $250 plus restitution to the victim. In addition the NCIC record shows the conviction and that it is a Misdemeanor.

It has been more the 5 years since the conviction, but less than 10 years.

Are they inadmissible to Canada?

Is that an example of a hybrid offense?

Must the officer assume by law that the individual was found guilty of an indictable offense, even considering the information available to him or her in the NCIC record?

RichardKenner

I don't see why. It appears that Canadian law and the law in most US states is similar here: damage to property only makes it a lesser offense. So there's no issue. The issue is only in cases (like DUI) where one country views a crime as more severe than another.

greentips

How soon before enough laws are passed on both sides of the border to make anyone a criminal for the purposes of "border control" and "travel control?"

I think that's where we are headed.

Foxhat

How did Charlie Sheen just get into Canada?

alexb133

Lol maybe he got an admissibility waiver.

Foxhat

Wellll, that should show they're not too hard to get.

mre5765

I suspect it shows that there are two sets of laws in Canada: one for the rich, and one for the rest.

Often1

While not all of this thread relates to safety & security, there is enough of that to suggest a comprehensive coverage:
1. As to the OP's friend's insurance coverage: read the insurance contract (something the friend should have done before purchasing). Highly unlikely it's covered becs this was the friend's error not some unforseen circumstance.
2. As to hotel refund: never hurts to ask. Most likely result, if anything, is a credit which friend can use if he can clear up his legal situation. Anything the hotel does is soley a customer acommodation.
3. As to the broader issue:
A. It is solely up to Canada to determine who enters. Don't think that Canadians and others who try to enter the USA are treated better or differently.
B. NCIC is an imperfect tool. It does not disclose whether the underlying offense was a felony or misdemeanor (many States do not even use those terms any longer) and it is wholly dependent on courts and other state officials entering dispositions.
C. Don't presume that foreign officials, particularly those at a port of entry have any familiarity with US law or speak English (not the case in Canada).
D. If you have a conviction or were even arrested, but not convicted, you should presume that there will always be issues with foreign travel. These will increase as the US shares more data with foreign law enforcement. If you have a conviction, allow for the cost, time and effort associated with obtaining the proper documentation which would allow you entry. Use a lawyer who understands the particulars. This is not something to try on your own unless you have a great deal of experience. If you were arrested but not convicted, make sure that you have attested copies of all of the paperwork in your physical possession when travelling and, if you are travelling to or through a non-English-speaking country, have certified translations of those documents as well.
E. Don't let time pass. Finding old records gets harder and harder over time. It can take months, personal visits and great expense to track things down which can be obtained for a few dollars today.

Lastly, don't rely on anecdotal stories from well-meaning friends. Just because your neighbor's chest pain turned out to be indigestion doesn't mean that yours will.

yyzvoyageur

Issuance of a temporary resident permit has to be justified in the circumstances. A number of factors are weighed to determine whether there are compelling reasons to issue a TRP. In the case of Charlie Sheen I'm guessing a TRP was issued because the economic benefit to Canada was seen as sufficient to overcome the risk to Canadian society.

mre5765

Semantically equivalent to what I wrote.

volunteerchild

Many countries such as Canada, Austrailia, and the UK and others will not allow anyone in who has a criminal conviction of any kind. Nothing you can do about it.

gojirasan

That's strange. I have traveled to both Canada and the UK with felonies on my record. I even lived in Canada for a while. I was turned away from entering Canada once, but it wasn't due to having felonies on my record. It was because they didn't believe that I was planning to leave once I entered. They did mention the criminal record issue and state that that alone would be enough to turn me away though. But they claimed that that wasn't their reason for turning me away.

yyzvoyageur

Not really. If he was just coming to visit a friend he probably would not have been allowed in. His recent trip had economic benefits for Canada. The fact that he is wealthy has nothing to do with it.

GUWonder

If he weren't relatively wealthy to the extent he is, the trip's "economic benefits for Canada" wouldn't have amounted to whatever they did.

The wealthy and/or otherwise well connected who are perceived to be delivering business get treated differently.

GUWonder

While many countries do have laws/regulations/policies in place that allow denial of entry to non-citizens who have a criminal conviction -- of who knows what kind varies -- with the above-mentioned countries (and many more) that is certainly not a certain outcome, at least not for a variety of people.