Court deals blow to Helmut Oberlander, lifts stay on loss of citizenship

Helmut Oberlander has lost a key battle in his fight tostave off deportation for lying to Canadian immigration authorities about his Second World War activities with a Nazi death squad.

In a ruling this week, a Federal Court judge lifted a stay on hisearlier decision that the government had been reasonable instripping citizenship from Helmut Oberlander. In addition, JudgeMichael Phelan sharply limited any possibility that Oberlander, 94,could take the case to the Federal Court of Appeal.

• Ex-Nazi interpreter Helmut Oberlander to appeal citizenship decision
• Helmut Oberlander and Omar Khadr cases put spotlight on global justice system, expert says

Phelan said he was mindful his decision "determines rights ofappeal."

One of Oberlander's lawyers said on Thursday that next steps wereuncertain.

"We don't have instructions at the moment about what he's goingto do," Barb Jackman said.

Timeline

The Ukraine-born Oberlandercame to Canada in 1954 and became a citizen six years later.

He has steadfastly maintained he wasjust 17 when he was forced on pain of execution to join the Nazideath squad Einsatzkommando 10a known as Ek 10a which wasresponsible for killing close to 100,000 people, mostly Jewish.

July 2016, the Supreme Court said it would not hear an appeal of a lower court's decision telling the government to reconsider its decision to revoke Oberlander'scitizenship for a forth time.

• That meant it was up to the federal cabinet to decide the retired Waterloo developer's fate.

July2017, an order-in-council was issued by the federal government to strip Oberlanderof his citizenship, prompting his current effort to stave off deportation.

• Oberlander said he would appeal the decision as he had "numerous times in the past."

September 2018, a Federal Court judge dismissed his appeal.

• Again, Oberlandersaid he would challenge the decision by seeking certification of questions by the trial decision judge."We're working on trying to convince that judge to certify questions, which means he identifies issues that the Court of Appeal should consider and deal with," Oberlander'slawyer Ronald Poulton said in September.

Basis of appeal

Oberlander'slawyers put forward nine questions, including one which dealt with procedural fairness and one which dealt with what members of cabinet made the decision to strip Oberlander of his citizenship.

But Phelanrejected allOberlander's arguments for certification, finding they did not"transcend the interests" of the immediate parties and raiseissues of "broad significance or general application."

"The court cannot find a 'serious question of generalimportance' to be certified nor can it see how reformulation of anyof the proposed questions would meet that threshold," Phelan said.

As a result, he said an earlier stay on his decision was lifted and a judicial review was dismissed.

Should he choose to do so, Oberlander may be able to persuadethe Federal Court of Appeal to hear the case on grounds outside ofthe Immigration Act. However, the highercourt generally hears only a fraction of cases decided by FederalCourt.