Article content continued

The brazenness of the lie is somewhat breathtaking. Judge Richard Mosley wrote in the decision that it “appears” that the immigration application was made and approved while Darshan was out on bail, either pending an appeal or during one of the periodic leaves he was given to help bring in the crops at his farm in the Punjab.

Yet, it was only in 2014 that Canada’s immigration folks figured out there might be a problem. During an interview with a visa officer in the Canadian consulate in Chandigarh, Barinder said he had never been asked about his father. He said he believed his father was innocent and would ultimately be absolved, noting that whenever his father was let out of jail, he never had travel restrictions placed on him and never had his passport taken from him.

Should the sin of the father’s lie be visited upon the son? The judge said yes. There is a duty of candour even if nobody double-checks the answers of one family member with others whose names might be on the application.

But here is something at least as troubling. When Darshan lied, the judge said it “foreclosed an avenue of investigation for immigration officials regarding the family’s application for admission. In such an investigation, Darshan Singh Sidhu’s murder conviction would undoubtedly be a material fact.”

I added the italics for emphasis. No one fact-checks applications? This seems abnormally trusting when what’s at stake are the full rights of Canadian citizenship.