Canada v Samejima (BCAC)
In Re Immigration Act and Munetaka Samejima, [1932] 45 BCR 401
See In re Munetaka Samejima (1932) 3 WWR 201-211. Samejima was arrested on another
warrant after his discharge, and filed another application for habeas corpus proceedings.
This was dismissed by Justice Murphy. The case listed here appealed that dismissal.
C.H. O’Halloran once again represented the appellant, with J.L. Clay standing for
the respondent. Chief Justice Macdonald recommended dismissal, and Justice McPhillips
concurred. Justices Martin and M.A. Macdonald favored allowing it. Ultimately, the
appeal was dismissed. Chief Justice Macdonald asserted that the Court must abide by
the provisions of the Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1927, ch. 93, which stated that “no
Court, and no Judge or officer thereof” would have “jurisdiction to interfere” with
an order for deportation, but for instances involving questions of citizenship or
domicile, which were not an aspect of this case. (403) He stated that “how [the Board
of Inquiry] proceeded [was] not a matter of interest at all”; they “may have been
absolutely wrong in finding that [Samejima] ought to be deported... they may have gone
right in the teeth or the evidence, but nevertheless the Parliament of Canada has
said, on no ground whatever is it to be interfered with.” (404) The Board had the
right, he insisted, to detain Samejima for deportation, and the Court only had the
power to review Justice Fisher’s decision. Justice Martin insisted that In re Low
Hong Hing (1926) 2 WWR 597, 37 BCR295, 46 CCC 65, established that the Court could
in fact quash a deportation order, when the Board of Inquiry’s “exercise of its jurisdiction”
was deemed “a violation of the ‘essential requirements of justice’” (203); this is
precisely what he considered the Board’s re-arrest of Samejima to be. The Board had
“illegally amended” their original order after it was deemed “unsound and insufficient
to support a re-arrest,” and sentenced Samejima to deportation once again, without
giving him an opportunity to meet the charge or the mounting of a new inquiry before
the sentencing. (204) He suggested permitting the appeal and releasing Samejima, and
Justice M.A. Macdonald concurred.
Plaintiffs | |
Defendants |
The Crown
|
Appellants | |
Respondents |
The Crown
|
Judges |
Metadata
Download Original XML (12K)
Download Standalone XML (12K)
Title
Canada v Samejima (BCAC)
Credits
Researcher: Monique F. Ulysses
Researcher: Lauren Chalaturnyk
Metadata author: Connell Parish
Metadata author: Gordon Lyall
Publication Information: See Terms of Use for publication and licensing information.
Source:
British Columbia Court of Appeal.
British Columbia Reports.
1932.
Terminology
Readers of these historical materials will encounter derogatory references to Japanese
Canadians and euphemisms used to obscure the intent and impacts of the internment
and dispossession. While these are important realities of the history, the Landscapes
of Injustice Research Collective urges users to carefully consider their own terminological
choices in writing and speaking about this topic today as we confront past injustice.
See our statement on terminology, and related sources here.