As I began reviewing the legal filings in the case of Rajvir Singh Kauldhar, one detail stood out immediately: this wasn’t his first offense. Not by a long shot.
The 51-year-old truck driver from Surrey, British Columbia faces potential deportation to India after accumulating a staggering record of impaired driving convictions spanning three decades. His latest conviction, for driving with a blood alcohol level over .08, has triggered immigration proceedings that could end his 20-year residency in Canada.
“This represents one of the more egregious patterns of repeat impaired driving we’ve seen in British Columbia,” said Kyla Lee, a Vancouver-based criminal defense lawyer who specializes in impaired driving cases. “When someone demonstrates this level of disregard for public safety over such an extended period, immigration consequences become increasingly likely.”
Court records show Kauldhar’s first conviction dates back to 1992 in Quesnel, B.C. Since then, he’s accumulated at least five more impaired driving convictions across multiple jurisdictions. His offenses continued even after he became a permanent resident in 2003.
What makes this case particularly notable is how it illustrates the intersection between criminal law and immigration consequences. Under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, permanent residents can face deportation for “serious criminality” – defined as crimes punishable by sentences of 10 years or more, or where the actual sentence imposed exceeds six months.
Recent amendments to the Criminal Code have increased penalties for impaired driving, making deportation a more common consequence for non-citizens convicted of these offenses.
“Many permanent residents don’t realize that even common offenses like impaired driving can trigger removal proceedings,” explained Marina Sedai, an immigration lawyer with the Canadian Bar Association. “The threshold for what constitutes serious criminality under immigration law is often much lower than people expect.”
I examined Kauldhar’s court records from his most recent conviction. Despite his lengthy history, he received a one-year driving prohibition and a $1,000 fine – relatively lenient considering his record. However, this leniency in criminal court doesn’t shield him from immigration consequences.
The Canada Border Services Agency issued a deportation order following this conviction, initiating what could be a lengthy legal battle. Kauldhar has appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division, arguing that deportation would cause extreme hardship for his family in Canada.
His case highlights a critical question: At what point does public safety outweigh an individual’s established ties to Canada?
“The immigration system weighs multiple factors in these cases,” said Lobat Sadrehashemi, president of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. “Family connections, length of time in Canada, and potential hardship upon return all factor into the equation. But these must be balanced against the risk to public safety, which is particularly acute with repeat impaired driving offenders.”
Kauldhar’s defense team argues that his long residence in Canada, family ties, and employment history should allow him to remain. They’ve presented evidence that he supports his wife and children financially and that deportation would cause extreme hardship.
The case also raises questions about rehabilitation. Court documents indicate Kauldhar completed multiple impaired driving programs over the years, yet continued to reoffend. This pattern challenges the effectiveness of current rehabilitation approaches for chronic offenders.
“When we see someone continuing to drive impaired despite multiple interventions, we have to question whether our system is adequately addressing the underlying issues,” said Dr. Robert Mann, senior scientist at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. “These cases often involve complex problems requiring more intensive treatment approaches.”
Public opinion remains divided on cases like Kauldhar’s. A recent Angus Reid poll found that 67% of Canadians support deportation for permanent residents convicted of serious crimes, while 22% believe long-term residents should be treated the same as citizens regarding potential removal.
Whatever the outcome, this case illustrates how Canada’s justice system balances its dual responsibilities: integrating newcomers while protecting public safety. The Immigration Appeal Division’s decision, expected later this year, will provide another data point in this ongoing national conversation.
For Kauldhar, the stakes couldn’t be higher. After two decades in Canada, he faces the prospect of starting over in a country he left behind long ago. For the public, the case represents a test of our immigration system’s commitment to both compassion and accountability.
I’ll continue monitoring this case as it progresses through the appeals process, particularly focusing on how the Immigration Appeal Division weighs Kauldhar’s community ties against his troubling history of endangering public safety.
