Essential Latin Phrases in Canadian Immigration Law

Nasrin, a Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant (RCIC), encountered a challenging case that tested her expertise. One of her clients, a refugee claimant, received a complex legal document from the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). As Nasrin meticulously reviewed the document, she stumbled upon several Latin phrases. Although she was familiar with common immigration terminology, these Latin expressions were somewhat unfamiliar to her. Consequently, Nasrin set out on a quest to decode these Latin phrases. Her journey deepened her understanding of legal jargon. Moreover, Nasrin’s efforts reinforced her commitment to providing the best possible guidance to those navigating the intricate pathways of Canadian immigration law.

Deciphering the role of Latin phrases in Canadian immigration law

We could posit that the historical role of the Roman legal system is the main reason there are many Latin phrases in Canadian immigration legal documents. Judges, IRB members, and officers incorporate these phrases for many reasons. However, the number one reason could be that these phrases briefly and precisely explain issues. Moreover, many legal principles originated in Roman law and were expressed in Latin.

In recent years, judges and other decision-makers have tried to avoid using complex jargon. The intention is to make legal documents more accessible and easier to understand. However, some phrases still appear here and there. This article explains some famous Latin phrases found in Canadian immigration documents.

Some Latin phrases in immigration-related court cases

The following list shows a few Latin phrases I could locate in immigration cases. I mainly focused on the decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA), and the Federal Court (FC). However, I extracted a couple of these terms from IRB decisions. Of course, this list is not comprehensive, but I did my best not to miss the most common terms.

A-C

• Actus Reus (AK-tus RAY-uhs): Refers to the actual act of committing a crime. It’s necessary to establish criminal responsibility, alongside the individual’s mental state at the time of the act—for example, Canada v. Kurt, 2022 FC, para. 22.
• Ad Hoc (AD HOK): A term for solutions or committees formed for a specific, often immediate problem or task rather than for general or ongoing purposes—for example, Aryan v. Canada, 2022 FC – para 21.
• Audi Alteram Partem (OW-dee AL-teh-ram PAR-tem) means “hear the other side” or “let the other side be heard as well.” It’s a fundamental principle of natural justice and fairness in legal proceedings. This principle mandates that each party in a legal dispute have an opportunity to present their case and respond to the other party’s claims—for example, Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v. Canada, 2020 FCA 196, para 62, 64, & 70.
• Bona Fide (BOH-nah FEE-day): Indicates sincerity or honesty (opposite of Mala Fide). In legal terms, it usually refers to genuine intentions or agreements without any attempt to deceive—for example, Singh v. Canada, 2023 FC, para. 14 & 38.
• Certiorari (ser-shee-oh-RAHR-ee): A mechanism where a higher court reviews the decision of a lower court or administrative body. Courts often use this term when there’s a need to ensure the legality of a lower court’s decision—for example, Canada v. Chhina, 2019 SCC 29 – multiple occurrences.

D-K

• De Facto (day FAK-toh): Means “in fact” or “in practice,” referring to situations that exist in reality, even if not legally recognizable—for example, Jean v. Canada, 2023 FC 1677 – para 14.
• De Jure (day JOO-ray): Opposite of de facto, meaning “by law.” It refers to legally recognizable situations, regardless of whether they exist—for example, R. v. Pham, 2013 SCC 15, para. 16.
• De Novo (day NOH-voh): Translates to “anew” or “from the beginning.” It describes a process in which a court reviews a case as if the parties were presenting it for the first time, disregarding previous findings or conclusions—for example, Mason v. Canada, 2023 SCC 21, para 36, 62, & 68.
• Ex Parte (eks PAR-tee): Describes proceedings or actions taken by or for the benefit of one party without the other party’s involvement—for example, Canada v. Harkat, 2014 SCC – para 34 & 101.
• Functus Officio (FUNK-tus oh-FISH-ee-oh) means “having performed his or her office.” It refers to a situation in which an official or decision-making body has no further authority or legal standing after fulfilling its role—for example, Canada v. Kurukkal, 2010 FCA, para. 1-5.
• Habeas Corpus (HAY-bee-uhs KOR-puhs): A legal principle that protects individuals from unlawful detention, allowing them to seek judicial relief if they believe they are being held without cause—for example, Canada v. Chhina, 2019 SCC – para multiple occurrences.
• In-Camera (in KAM-er-ah) means “in private.” Legal proceedings conducted away from the public eye are in-camera—for example, Canada v. Harkat, 2014 SCC – para 34 & 119.
• Inter Alia (IN-ter AH-lee-ah) means “among other things.” It indicates that a statement applies to many things, not just the ones specifically mentioned—for example, Agraira v. Canada, 2013 SCC- para 26 & 35.
• Ipso Facto (IP-soh FAK-toh) means “by the fact itself.” It indicates that you could confirm something by its nature or the fact itself—for example, Hilaire v. Canada, 2021 FC – para 27.

L-N

• Lex Loci (LEKS LOH-sigh): Translates to “law of the place.” It refers to the law or legal principles of the jurisdiction where an event occurred or where the trial is being held—for example, Yousaf v Canada, 2016 CanLII 98286 (CA IRB) – para 36.
• Loco Parentis (LOH-koh pah-REN-tis) translates to “in the place of a parent,” describing someone who takes on the responsibilities of a parent. However, they are not the biological parents—for example, A.N. v. Canada, 2016 FC, para. 29.
• Mala Fide (MAH-lah FEE-day): Opposite of bona fide, meaning “in bad faith.” It describes actions or intentions that are deceitful or fraudulent—for example, Mahjoub v. Canada, 2017 FCA – para 344.
• Mens Rea (MENZ RAY-ah): Refers to the mental state or intent behind committing a crime. It’s critical to determining a person’s criminal liability—for example, Ezokola v. Canada, 2013 SCC, para: summary, 59, 65, 90, 91, 103.
• Modus Operandi (MOH-duhs op-er-AN-dee): Often abbreviated as MO, it means “method of operating.” It refers to a pattern or method used, particularly in criminal activities—for example, see Saenz v. Canada, 2023 FC, para. 54 & 59.
• Nolo Contendere (NOH-loh kon-TEN-deh-ray): A legal plea meaning “I do not wish to contest.” It’s akin to accepting a conviction without admitting guilt, often used in plea bargaining—for example, Reyes v. Canada, 2015 FC, para. 9.

O-Z

• Prima Facie (PREE-mah FAY-shee): Translates to “at first sight.” It refers to evidence that, on its face, is sufficient to prove a particular fact unless contradicted and overcome by other evidence—for example, Canada v. Chhina, 2019 SCC – para 60.
• Pro Bono (PROH BOH-noh): Short for “pro bono publico,” meaning “for the public good.” It describes legal work undertaken voluntarily and without payment—for example, see Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada, 2023 SCC 17, para. 100.
• Ratio Decidendi (RAY-shee-oh de-SID-en-die): This means “the reason for the decision.” It refers to the legal principle or underlying rationale underlying a court’s decision—for example, Canada v. Gaytan, 2021 FCA 163, para. 60.
• Stare Decisis (STAR-ay de-SIGH-sis): A principle that mandates courts to follow precedents set by previous cases to ensure consistency and predictability in the law—for example, Canada v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 – multiple occurrences.
• Ultra Vires (UL-trah VEE-rays): Means “beyond the powers.” It refers to actions taken by an entity that are beyond the scope of its legally defined powers—for example, Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada, 2023 SCC 17 – multiple occurrences.

Important notes about the list of phrases

Please consider these points about the list of phrases.

• The list I have posted doesn’t cover every Latin phrase. However, I did my best to cover the most common ones. If you believe I must add another term, please contact us.
• My focus is on immigration to Canada. Therefore, I picked the court decisions related to immigration. Regardless, I have only picked one case per term. Most terms appear on multiple recent decisions.

If you have questions about Latin phrases, please get in touch with us. Moreover, you may book mentorship sessions with me or join ICN as a licensed practitioner. If you are an end-user and need help, please book a consultation session or fill out the following form.