Organised criminality — IRPA s 37

Topic Inadmissibility 🇨🇦 Verified: 2026-05

Overview

Section 37 of IRPA renders a permanent resident or foreign national inadmissible on grounds of organised criminality. There are two distinct grounds: (1) being a member of an organisation that is believed on reasonable grounds to be or to have been engaged in transnational crime — including people smuggling, trafficking in persons, and money laundering; and (2) engaging in people smuggling or trafficking in persons. Unlike criminal inadmissibility under s 36, there is no rehabilitation pathway for s 37 organised criminality.

Section 37 is one of the most serious inadmissibility grounds in IRPA. A finding under s 37 cannot be overcome by a criminal rehabilitation application, a record suspension, or a Temporary Resident Permit. The only avenue is the Ministerial relief provision in s 34(2) — and the Minister of Public Safety rarely exercises this discretion for organised crime findings.

Legal basis

IRPA s 37(1)(a) — membership in an organisation that is believed on reasonable grounds to be or to have been engaged in activity that is part of a pattern of criminal activity planned and organised by a number of persons acting in concert for the purpose of material benefit
IRPA s 37(1)(b) — engaging in activity such as people smuggling, trafficking in persons, or money laundering as part of a transnational crime
IRPA s 37(2) — exceptions: s 37 does not apply to a person in respect of activities that are within Canada's jurisdiction and for which a record suspension has been granted; and does not apply to a protected person
IRPA s 34(2) — Ministerial discretion to grant an exemption from inadmissibility, applicable to s 37 as well as s 34
IRPA s 44 — CBSA officer must write a report to the Minister where there are reasonable grounds to believe a person is inadmissible; the ID then determines inadmissibility

How it works

Ground 1 — Membership in an organised crime group (s 37(1)(a))

The membership ground under s 37(1)(a) uses a broad definition. Unlike s 36, it does not require a criminal conviction. The officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that:

An organisation exists
The organisation is believed on reasonable grounds to be or to have been engaged in a pattern of criminal activity
That activity was planned and organised by a number of persons acting in concert for material benefit
The person is or was a member of that organisation

The term "member" is interpreted broadly by Canadian courts and does not require formal membership, leadership, or active participation. Associating with the organisation in a meaningful way, even at a low level, can constitute membership.

Examples of organisations that have triggered s 37(1)(a) findings include outlaw motorcycle gangs (OMGs), street gangs with transnational connections, and cartel-linked organisations.

Ground 2 — People smuggling and trafficking (s 37(1)(b))

Section 37(1)(b) applies where a person has personally engaged in people smuggling or trafficking in persons as part of a transnational crime. This ground requires proof that:

The person engaged in the activity (smuggling or trafficking)
The activity was transnational in nature (crossed an international border)

People smuggling for profit — even a single instance — can trigger this ground. Trafficking in persons is defined broadly to include recruitment, transport, harbouring, or receipt of persons by force or deception for exploitation.

Standard of proof

The standard for a s 37 finding is "reasonable grounds to believe" — the same lower standard applied to s 34 security inadmissibility. This is less than a balance of probabilities. A credible belief based on objective grounds is sufficient. No conviction is required.

No rehabilitation pathway

This is the key distinction from s 36 criminal inadmissibility. For s 36, a person may apply for criminal rehabilitation after 5 years have elapsed. For s 37, there is no rehabilitation mechanism. The person remains inadmissible indefinitely unless:

They obtain a Ministerial relief decision under s 34(2) — rare, and not automatic
They are a protected person (refugee protection provides a statutory exception)

No IAD appeal

A permanent resident found inadmissible under s 37 has no right of appeal to the IAD (IRPA s 64(1)). The only avenue for review is judicial review before the Federal Court, which is limited to questions of law and procedural fairness — not a de novo reconsideration of the facts.