-1- 0003-B7-01315-4-Oct-17-DR-STRARO-58(1)(b)

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD

- IMMIGRATION DIVISION -

Record of a Detention Review held under the

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, concerning

TERESA MICHELLE GRATTON

HEARING: PUBLIC

HELD AT: Vanier

DATE: October 4, 2017

BEFORE: Ron Stratigopoulos - Member

APPEARANCES:

Teresa Michelle Gratton - Person Concerned

N/A - Counsel
Ms. Dapat - Minister’s Counsel
N/A - Interpreter
 -2- 0003-B7-01315-4-Oct-17-DR-STRARO-58(1)(b)

MEMBER: Good afternoon.

This is a review of the reasons for the detention of Teresa Michelle Gratton, it is taking place
today October 4, 2017 at the Vanier Correctional Centre.

Ms. Gratton, my name is Ron Stratigopoulos I am a member of Immigration Division.

This is Ms. Dapat, she works for the Canada Border Services Agency.

The reason we are here today is to determine whether or not you will remain in detention pending
the commencement of your admissibility hearing, okay, that is a separate hearing that determines whether
or not you are admissible to Canada.

PERSON CONCERNED: Okay.

MEMBER: All right.

For the purposes of this review you have the right to be represented by a counsel, that can be a
lawyer or a consultant, but those are arrangements that you have to make for and paid for on your own.

Were you expecting to have counsel here today?

PERSON CONCERNED: I am expecting some counsel at some point, yes.

I called --- I only called legal aid and…

MEMBER: Okay.

Legal aid typically does not cover detention reviews, did anybody tell you that they would be
coming here today?

PERSON CONCERNED: No.

She told me that she would be calling the lawyer for me and that someone should be contacting
me soon that is what she said.

MEMBER: Okay.

The law requires that I conduct this review even in the absence of a counsel.
 -3- 0003-B7-01315-4-Oct-17-DR-STRARO-58(1)(b)

The way this hearing works is that Ms. Dapat is going to tell me why you are in detention, when
she is done if you want you can speak on your own behalf and then at the end of the review I decide
whether or not you can be released, okay?

PERSON CONCERNED: Okay.

MEMBER: Do you have any questions?

PERSON CONCERNED: No sir.

MEMBER: No, okay.

Ms. Dapat…

MINISTER’S COUNSEL: Yes thank you.

So Ms. Gratton is not a Canadian citizen, she is however a permanent resident of Canada, she is
also a citizen of the United States.

The first record of her entry into Canada is October 3, 2002.

This was an entry --- she was seeking entry at the Windsor Ambassador Bridge and it came to
light that she had some outstanding charges in Tennessee and therefore was allowed to leave Canada at
that time.

She was counselled to obtain police clearance from the State of Tennessee and she advised at that
time that she will be moving to Canada to marry a Herbert Gratton.

Her next entry to Canada was on December 3, 2003 at which time she was issued a visitor record,
and it was valid until May 31, 2004.

The criminal databases were checked and the charges in Tennessee were ultimately dismissed.

Now there were subsequent visitor records issued, one July 7, 2004 another one on February 3,
2007, and then another one on October 22, 2007.

Now, a spousal sponsorship application was received on November 22, 2007, and there were two
other visitor records issued after that, one December 5, 2007, and the next one July 23, 2008.
 -4- 0003-B7-01315-4-Oct-17-DR-STRARO-58(1)(b)

On December 8, 2011 Ms. Gratton became a permanent resident at Citizenship and Immigration
office in London, Ontario.

On June 25, 2013 inland in Ontario Ms. Gratton received a conditional sentence of nine months
on 20 separate charges.

Now, there was a statutory declaration prepared, unfortunately I did not get copies for today’s
review, so I will have those at the 7-day detention review, but nonetheless on the first count of fraud under
5000 there was a conditional sentence of nine months imposed with probation of 12 months.

There were two --- two additional charges for fraud under 5000, another charge for failure to
appear, another conditional sentence for attempt to commit an offence, use of a forged document, 13
actually, use of a fraud or forged document, break and enter and theft, as well as a theft under 5000.

So it was a nine month conditional sentence ordered on first count with 12 months’ probation and
then nine months 12 months’ probation on each --- each separate occurrence concurrent in the first
sentence.

PERSON CONCERNED: Can I say…

MEMBER: You will have in a minute, a chance when she is done.

PERSON CONCERNED: I was just going to say something (inaudible).

MINISTER’S COUNSEL: Okay.

So on September 24, 2013 we were able to confirm Ms. Gratton’s residential address, unit 2, at
105 Grant Avenue, just confirming through the parole officer.

Now, we sent our request actually through registered mail for Ms. Gratton to attend an interview
at Niagara Falls Canada Border Services Agency office, and in fact when Canada Post delivered it
because they required a signature and the confirmation indicates that Ms. Gratton had signed for the
package.

However, Ms. Gratton failed to appear for this interview on October 15, 2013.

On November 18, 2013 a Section 44 report was written for serious criminality, and this was on
the basis of the convictions from 2013.
 -5- 0003-B7-01315-4-Oct-17-DR-STRARO-58(1)(b)

Now, on December 14, 2015 officers of the Canada Border Services Agency attended Ms.
Gratton’s last known address, however there was someone living at that residence, they stated that they
did not know Ms. Gratton and they did not know how to contact her.

Now, on February 5, 2016 a referral for the admissibility hearing was signed and subsequent to
that a warrant for the admissibility hearing was issued on April 7, 2016.

Now, on top of June 25, 2013 convictions there are some other convictions that I would like to
mention Mr. Member.

So (inaudible) starting on the same day June 25, 2013 is a conditional sentence of nine months for
an unlawful entry, again probation 12 months concurrent to the other --- the other counts.

There is also one from January 6, 2017 and this is with respect to uttering a forged document.

Ms. Gratton was convicted and was sentenced to 23 days of pre-sentence custody and jail of one
day time served.

PERSON CONCERNED: This would be the same as the other one.

MINISTER’S COUNSEL: Yeah, it is.

It is just in a --- in different system so that is why it is not showing up on that other one, and I will
have a copy for this should you be detained and it is required the next time, I will provide copies of it.

On September 29, 2017 possession of a controlled substance conviction, 23 days pre-sentence

custody, time served one day and that was concurrent presumably to the first one that I told you about.

And there is another one as well for possession of a substance.

MEMBER: Sorry, I thought you said that that conviction for utter forged document was
January 6th.

MINISTER’S COUNSEL: Yeah, sorry, that was the occurrence date, the conviction date
was September 29, 2017, my apologies.

MEMBER: Okay.

MINISTER’S COUNSEL: And was again the 23 days pre-sentence custody and time served
one day jail concurrent.
 -6- 0003-B7-01315-4-Oct-17-DR-STRARO-58(1)(b)

And lastly same conviction date was a conviction for obstruct the peace officer and then theft
under 5000.

On September 8, 2017 the outstanding warrant was executed and a notice of arrest was issued.

Ms. Gratton was located as a result of being in police custody facing the criminal charges which
resulted in convictions as I mentioned.

It is indicated here that officers had attended Ms. Gratton’s last known address on multiple
occasions and there was even one occasion where they spoke to her husband and son, but unfortunately
they were never able to make contact with Ms. Gratton herself.

Ms. Gratton denied receiving any information that the Canada Border Services Agency was
attempting to contact her even though she admitted that she was living at that address that the officers had
tried to contact her at.

Now she came on to our hold once she finished her sentence for the last set of convictions.

I believe that is all the information that I have to provide.

I do note that the officer that arrested Ms. Gratton had conducted an interview and he also
provided a statutory declaration with that information.

I do not know if there is any --- any other information here that is useful, but that is what is in the
disclosure package that unfortunately we do not have.

Nonetheless, today the Minister is seeking Ms. Gratton’s continued detention on the grounds of
appearance for an admissibility hearing.

Certainly given the circumstances and the Minister’s inability to locate Ms. Gratton she has
demonstrated that she will not appear, in fact it is possible that her family has been assisting her in
eluding us.

Furthermore, her criminal history is also indicative of someone who cannot follow or abide by the
laws of Canada, and essentially her criminal has continued and has been ongoing since 2013.

In the absence of a viable alternative the Minister is seeking her continued detention to ensure her
availability for the admissibility hearing.
 -7- 0003-B7-01315-4-Oct-17-DR-STRARO-58(1)(b)

With respect to the admissibility hearing and the report that has been written against her because
sentence imposed on Ms. Gratton was more than six months she will lose her right to appeal.

In the Minister’s view this certainly heightens her unlikeliness to appear for this proceeding.

PERSON CONCERNED: I actually did six months house arrest not nine months.

And I did apply --- I mean I --- I was fined, my husband was my surety, I was on probation, I
complied with everything that happened, everything I was supposed to do I did.

And I was working for the gentleman that they say that I forged the documents for, he had gone
into the hospital, he owed me money, he told me he gave me his keys, he told me to go to his house, get
his chequebook, write the money that he owed me and to cash the cheques.

He wanted me to sell some narcotics for him, I refused to do that, so when he got out of the
hospital he had me arrested for stealing his chequebook.

I did not break and enter his house, that was dropped, and my unlawful entry instead of breaking
and entry, and I was charged of course for fraud because I wrote the cheques and he said he did not give
me permission to do so because I did not sell his narcotics.

I ended up making a plea bargain and did six months house arrest and stayed on probation for a
year.

I am not a person --- I will be 50 years old the 20th of this month, that was the last time that I had
been in --- the first time I had been in trouble and the last time until just recently.

I have not --- never had a record, I will be 50 years old, I did not have (inaudible).

MEMBER: (Inaudible) okay, that was in 2013, but now you have got yourself four more
convictions just three days ago.

PERSON CONCERNED: Three days ago.

MEMBER: Yeah, you were convicted September 29th, four days ago.

PERSON CONCERNED: Actually I got into the trouble 30 something days ago because I
spent 30 days in jail.

MEMBER: Right, but the convictions were registered September 29th.

 -8- 0003-B7-01315-4-Oct-17-DR-STRARO-58(1)(b)

PERSON CONCERNED: Right.

MEMBER: Okay.

PERSON CONCERNED: But I took a plea bargain on those too, and the narcotics that they
caught me with were mine and my husband’s that were just in a bottle that is why I only got one day
served on it.

I have been on narcotics prescribed to me for over 17 years.

My husband is disabled.

MEMBER: Mm-hmm.

PERSON CONCERNED: It was proven in a court of law that those were our pills.

Yes, I (inaudible) you know, I am sorry, people make mistakes.

I did not really resist arrest.

MEMBER: You stole what?

PERSON CONCERNED: I stole something from Wal-Mart, sun bathing clothes.

MEMBER: Okay.

For theft under.

PERSON CONCERNED: Yes.

MEMBER: Okay.

And the conviction for possession --- possession of a controlled substance.

PERSON CONCERNED: That was the narcotics for me and my husband, they were our
pills.

MEMBER: Mm-hmm.
 -9- 0003-B7-01315-4-Oct-17-DR-STRARO-58(1)(b)

PERSON CONCERNED: That we had prescriptions for.

MEMBER: Okay.

Then why were you convicted, that is not a criminal offence.

PERSON CONCERNED: Because they were in a bottle with no name on them, and I had
my husband’s pills in with mine.

MEMBER: Okay.

And what about utter forged document?

PERSON CONCERNED: That is where my husband and I were being kicked out of
apartment, I had gone to see my doctor, I asked her to please release my medications to me five days
early, she refused to do so, I went to the drug store I told them that she had said that they could release my
narcotics, they handed me a piece of paper asked me to take it upstairs get her to sign it, I went into the
stairwell I signed it, I took it back to them so I can get my meds because I was going to Sarnia.

And I --- maybe addicted to the pain pills and being on them for so long I did not want to go to
Sarnia and not have my meds, so I signed it.

MEMBER: So you are addicted to pain killers.

PERSON CONCERNED: Yes, I have been on them for 17 years.

MEMBER: Okay.

Do you understand that it is likely that you are going to get ordered deported and have to leave
Canada?

PERSON CONCERNED: No.

MEMBER: Okay.

The Minister had made a report, these criminal convictions are convictions that can lead to an
inadmissibility finding and the result of an inadmissibility finding is a deportation order.

PERSON CONCERNED: I have three kids here who are grown and two grandchildren.
 - 10 - 0003-B7-01315-4-Oct-17-DR-STRARO-58(1)(b)

My husband is native with (inaudible) First Nation.

My kids are all Canadian citizens born to a Canadian citizen outside of Canada.

I have nothing in Tennessee or in the States, all my family is here.

I do not want to leave, I am not a flight risk, I have never tried to stay (inaudible).

MEMBER: Well, when we talk about a flight risk, we are talking about your likelihood for
appearing for removal from this country as well.

PERSON CONCERNED: I would appear.

I did not know…

MEMBER: To go back to Tennessee?

PERSON CONCERNED: I did not know that I was supposed to…

MEMBER: I am not talking about appearing for a hearing that hearing is going to take place,
what I am saying is that it is likely that you are going to be told to leave Canada.

PERSON CONCERNED: Well, if I am told to leave Canada then I would have to do that
but that is not something that I want to do.

So I am going to retain a lawyer and try and fight it, but if was made to leave I would have to go.

MEMBER: Okay.

Is there anybody that can post a bond on your behalf?

PERSON CONCERNED: My husband.

MEMBER: Okay.

Have you talked to him recently?

PERSON CONCERNED: No, I have not had a chance to use the phone.

MEMBER: Okay.
 - 11 - 0003-B7-01315-4-Oct-17-DR-STRARO-58(1)(b)

When --- when was the last time you talked to him?

PERSON CONCERNED: When I was in London jail he came for a visit that is the last time
I saw him or talked to him, we have a cell phone and we cannot call on that.

MEMBER: How about your --- how about your --- your kids, are you in contact with them?

PERSON CONCERNED: Yes.

But they all have cell phones too and I cannot call them without using a regular phone because
none of them have a landline.

MEMBER: Okay.

Is there anything else that you want to say Ms. Gratton?

PERSON CONCERNED: I would like to say that I am sorry for what I did and I --- I
realize that I made a mistake and that I should not have done it.

If I was not --- if I had not (inaudible) my doctor for what I did I would have never stolen.

I just wanted to have…

MEMBER: Okay.

PERSON CONCERNED: …some extra money, I am sorry.

DECISION

MEMBER: Ms. Gratton it is possible that you can be released pending your admissibility
hearing, that probably will be scheduled to take place in the really near future.

However, I think it is also necessary that there be some sort of bondsperson, a surety.
 - 12 - 0003-B7-01315-4-Oct-17-DR-STRARO-58(1)(b)

As your husband was for the criminal side he may potentially be a surety on the immigration side,
I am talking you about getting you out of detention for immigration purposes.

My main concerns here are that back in 2013 the immigration authorities once they got wind of
your convictions in June of that year tried to arrange for an interview with you, they couriered a package
to you that was signed and received by somebody at your address.

PERSON CONCERNED: I filled that paperwork out and I send it back in.

MEMBER: Okay.

And I told them in that paperwork that I had no (inaudible) to go and no way to get there.

PERSON CONCERNED: Okay.

Well, they scheduled an interview, you knew the date of that interview and you did not show up
for that interview.

Also in June of that year you were convicted for failing to appear.

So that means on the criminal side of things as well you have a conviction for not following a
judge’s orders.

Subsequent to that you say you are 50 and you never got trouble with law but now I see
convictions a few days ago for offences that incurred months or maybe more than months ago, shop
lifting at Wal-Mart…

PERSON CONCERNED: No, that was just --- that was just this last month.

MEMBER: Okay.

Having drugs that properly were not labelled, you know, I struggle with that interpretation, I do
not think it is an offence to have your own prescribed medication…

PERSON CONCERNED: I can provide documents to prove (inaudible).

MEMBER: …in a --- in a --- in a pill box that is not listed.

You got convicted of possession of a controlled substance.

 - 13 - 0003-B7-01315-4-Oct-17-DR-STRARO-58(1)(b)

PERSON CONCERNED: (Inaudible).

MEMBER: Miss --- Ms. Gratton, I am not here to look behind those convictions, if you had
an argument you should not have pled to them you should have gone to a judge and tried to prove your
innocence.

PERSON CONCERNED: They said it was…

MEMBER: Right now those stand as convictions…

PERSON CONCERNED: They said it was against the law for me to have my husband’s
medication in a bottle that did not have his name on them.

MEMBER: Okay.

You were also convicted of uttering forged document.

That is similar to fraud and forged document offences conviction that you had in June of ’13.

So this addiction --- you tell me you are addicted to painkillers, the inference I draw from here is
that your desire to have these painkillers is so strong that you are committing frauds, sign forms, getting
doctor’s notes signed so you can feed this habit.

This addiction that you have, it does not speak well to your ability to follow lawful orders as they
are imposed against you.

So I do not think that I can simply release you on your own signature today.

I do not think you are a danger to the public, however the nature of your convictions, your
addiction, the fact that you are facing a real possibility of being returned to the United States of America
despite the fact that you have been here now for…

PERSON CONCERNED: 13 years.

MEMBER: …13 years, 6 years as a permanent resident, you have Canadian born children
here, a husband here, grandkids here, and admittedly you have nothing in Tennessee.

It does not give any confidence that you would voluntarily report for removal should that be the
final disposition of your admissibility hearing.

I do not think that your detention is a lengthy one, the admissibility hearing will probably be
scheduled within the next week.
 - 14 - 0003-B7-01315-4-Oct-17-DR-STRARO-58(1)(b)

Going forward I do not see any real impediments here, it is simple enough to remove citizens of
United States through the border at Niagara Falls, I do not see any delay, so detention is not going to be
lengthy and I do not see any alternative here.

You say that your husband has acted as a surety in the past and if he wants to help we will
consider him as an alternative, but he needs to come to this place so that we can speak to him, and it is not
necessarily just your husband it can be any surety, it could be a friend, it could be any of your children,
husband might be the best.

I do not know the circumstances of each person’s financial situation and their involvement in this
criminal activity that you have undertaken over the last three or four years.

So in the absence of an alternative today your detention will continue.

Ms. Gratton I am going to schedule another review for October 11 th, okay, that is one week from
today, it is going to be at 1:30 in the afternoon.

If you get a lawyer or if your husband or anyone else to act as a surety, they need to be here at…

PERSON CONCERNED: Could you write (inaudible).

MEMBER: You will get that notice in writing.

They need to be here one week from today at 1:30, do you understand that?

PERSON CONCERNED: (Inaudible).

MEMBER: That is correct.

Today’s matter is concluded.

----------REVIEW CONCLUDED----------

I HEREBY DECLARE THAT THIS IS A TRUE

TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORDING AND THAT I HAVE
SWORN THE OATH OF SECRECY

_______________________________________
Heather Sutherland – Transcriptionist
For DigitScribe Inc.
Security # 95528257-0000759121
October 9, 2017