All other concerns aside, I am curious how Canada can see US court histories in their computer. Does the US just open up files on its citizens for all the world to see? Would a Canada immigration officer be able to see the court histories of citizens of France or China?

you missed the part where he said he was in AZ (a pig state) and was around key cars, not actually DRIVING

Anyone can get your US criminal record. It's public.

I'm glad to hear the OP is cancelling this business trip since it's very likely it would end in total failure and disaster, a big waste of money and time because one set of pigs (Canada Immigration) and another set of pigs (AZ cops) have access to the same database that says you're a "bad guy". Unbelievable but true.

Notwithstanding the rhetoric, immigration law in Canada generally suggests you are not admissible with a DUI. If I may make a suggestion though if you'd really like to go to the meeting; fly to Bellingham or Seattle and drive to a land crossing. When you present yourself to the border agent, explain you're attending a meeting in Vancouver at your Canadian subsidiary and wait and see if he or she asks about criminal convictions. Be truthful.

If he/she turns you around, then that's that but you haven't spent as much money trying to get in on a flight straight to Vancouver which would be expensive. They may not ask you about criminal convictions, or may see it and not care.

Still, I think the rest of the advice is sound. The reality is you're not admissible without a waiver, even though your circumstances are clearly extenuating, so you're at the mercy of the agent doing the examination when you arrive.

It's pretty common for DUI defendants to say that they weren't driving. They were just sitting in the front seat but not planning to drive, they were taking a nap in the back, etc. It's the reason that a lot of states now define a DUI a little more broadly to the intent to drive. In lieu of waiting until you fire up the car and start driving away, the police can arrest you if the keys are on you and you're attempting to get into the car. It's to short circuit the old "I didn't really drive, I passed out first so I'm innocent" defense. The argument is that a DUI offender is a safety hazard the second they turn the key, so preventing that from happening is an important goal.

I'm not saying that's the case with the OP, but the bottom line is it's irrelevant. He has a conviction, and it's on his record, for all to see.

catocony - I'm not trying to make excuses - based on the law as it is applied in AZ I would have voted myself guilty at trial. Actually if I had known that I was deemed 'inadmissible' the moment I refused to voluntarily provide a blood sample there wouldn't have been a trial.

I was in jail with a 20 year old kid who was in for his second extreme DUI. His only concern was if he could have a couple beers at lunch once granted work release (he was in for two weeks straight and then six weeks of being let out for work each day.) If I am considered no different from that idiot, then so be it - I just doubt that was the intention of the policy.

I'm just one guy trying to find out the odds of getting though YVR with a modern passport and flags in the system. That question has been settled. I just wish Canada would clarify the policy in unambiguous language, and clearly I'm not alone in that desire.

The Canadian consulate in Los Angeles has been pretty quick on email inquiries in my experience, although they do not take phone calls. Suggest you try the consulate or embassy nearest you. If you get an answer, you can also print it out and take it with you. For LA, the urgent inquiry email is: [email protected]

Thank goodness someone in this thread finally cast a stone; for a minute there, I was worried the OP had the moral high ground.

When I lived in Germany, there were two general classifications of DUI (this is a very rough generalization). If you came in between .05-.079, your DUI was considered more of a traffic infraction. If it was above .08, it was treated more like a criminal offense.

I'm not sure what the Canadian authorities consider to be DUI, but I can't help but think that if they differentiated between the serious DUIs and the less serious DUIs, they would not have to turn around so many people. Granted, drinking and driving isn't a good idea regardless, but there is a difference between driving after a beer or two and driving while completely inebriated.

Maybe another workable condition of entry is to forbid anyone who has a prior DUI (or a recent DUI) from driving while in Canada under the penalty of permanent expulsion if they are caught driving in Canada. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to keep people out who may have made a mistake earlier in their life, or people who can demonstrate that they won't drive while in Canada (for instance, someone who is entering with another person who can drive or someone who has train/air reservations).

While I do not condone DUI/DWI at all, no exceptions, if the AZ law is like the Oklahoma one then the cops can arrest you for DUI just by having car keys on you or being around your car as they say you have the "intent" to drive. I do find that a big stretch. I knew two people who got tagged for it; one didn't even own a car in OKC, the other was sleeping it off in the back seat as he awaited his sober friend to drive him home. $#!t happens.

If one is drunk and behind the wheel that is serious and there should be no excuse for it.

Not to fan any flames or stoke any controversies.... and I haven't been to Canada since the 1970's and have no plans to go any time soon.... But can people who have recently been to Canada say, if they even routinely ask the question, "have you ever been arrested?". I mean sure they 'could' ask you and they 'could' pull your arrest record up on their computer. But is it front and center as part of their ordinary border inspection, or is even asking the question or checking an arrest record reserved for cases where the officer sees something else that compels them to dig a little deeper or perhaps some secondary inspection.

It seems plausible that the vast majority of American drunks who visit Canada are legitimately unaware of Canada's restriction, they just are not asked on an ordinary entry, ignorance is bliss, and their trips are uneventful. And perhaps it's a much much smaller number "don't look right" or something, get looked at a little closer and asked some extra questions and have issues.

All just pure speculation on my part. Like I say. Haven't been to Canada since the 1970's.

There are plenty of reports, just on FlyerTalk, of people being turned away at the border or sent straight back on the next available flight for having DUI/DWI convictions. It's not a theoretical "maybe", like a lot of discussions are on here. It definitely happens, and seems to happen fairly regularly.

What I can personally confirm, having been sent to Immigration secondary twice myself and traveling with three other guys who got an Immigration secondary, is that the Canadians are very, very touchy. These were Immigration secondaries, not Customs, which I've never had to visit and personally know of no one else who has.

It can be a pain to enter Canada on business. Oh, and shipping stuff in? I've had more shipping issues with stuff going to Canada than I have with any other country besides Brasil and Russia.

As a passenger on leisure trips, I've ended up in immigration secondary very rarely. British Commonwealth countries which are part of the US-led international surveillance network referred to commonly as the Five Eyes, those seem to be the worst of the lot for sending admissible people from OECD countries to immigration secondary.

On my road crossings from the US to Canada in recent years, I've never been asked about arrest history. I assume that having no arrest history reduces the chances of being asked about any arrest history.

OP, sorry if this has been answered as I skimmed through, but was this actually placed as a conviction on your record or was is simply a supervision?