Canadian courts rule on two cases of denaturalization and deportation (02/14/99)

Canadian courts rule on two cases of denaturalization and deportation

by Andrij Kudla Wynnyckyj
Toronto Press Bureau

TORONTO - In two cases decided recently by Canada's Federal Court, prosecutors failed to prove that the men they accused and committed war crimes during World War II.

The Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration (legally in the person of Minister Lucienne Robillard) had brought civil denaturalization and deportation proceedings against two pensioners, Volodymyr Katriuk of Montréal and Johann Dueck of St. Catharines, Ontario. In two separate decisions (Mr. Katriuk's handed down in Montreal, Mr. Dueck's in Toronto), their lawyers were told that the charges of war crimes were unsubstantiated.

And yet, Mr. Katriuk lost a decision in the civil proceedings called to determine if he had obtained his citizenship by fraud and deception, or by knowingly concealing material circumstances. Mr. Dueck won, as the judge in his case ruled that the Canadian government was not legally entitled to bar immigrants for "security reasons" at the time of the former Ukrainian volksdeutscher's (person of German origin) arrival in 1948.

On January 29, Federal Court Judge Marc Nadon found that by not alerting Canada's immigration authorities that he had changed his name, and by not answering a question about his employment in the 10 years prior to 1951 (which would have revealed that he was a collaborator), Mr. Katriuk had obtained entry into Canada by false means. In addition, the judge found that by not revealing his full wartime history in applying for Canadian citizenship in 1957 (under his real name), Mr. Katriuk did so fraudulently.

Mr. Katriuk, born in the village of Luzhany, Bukovyna, in 1921, did not dispute that he served with an auxiliary police battalion in Ukraine and Belarus in 1942-1943. However he underlined that he committed no war crimes during that service. In 1944 he was evacuated by the German forces westward to France, where together with others in his unit he went over to the French Resistance.

In September 1944, French units Mr. Katriuk was fighting with (against the Germans) came in contact with Soviet forces, who insisted that he be repatriated. Given the choice of joining the French Foreign Legion or being taken to the USSR, he joined. In July 1945, threatened by a hostile officer that he would be sent to Indochina, Mr. Katriuk deserted and, aided by former colleagues in the Resistance, obtained false identity papers, adopting the name of his brother-in-law (Nicholas Schpirka, still living in Bukovyna at the time) to avoid detection.

Mr. Katriuk gained entry into Canada as a landed immigrant in August 1951 using those identity papers. He reverted to his real name in 1957. According to the text of Judge Nadon's decision, Mr. Katriuk confided in a priest about his wish to revert to his real name in 1957, and on advice of a lawyer applied for a formal name change before filing for Canadian citizenship. He worked as a butcher in Montreal, and since retiring has been a beekeeper in Québec's Eastern Townships.

Judge Nadon found Mr. Katriuk's contention that he did not participate in anti-partisan actions "not credible," but wrote "I am not prepared, on the evidence before me, to conclude that he participated in the commission of atrocities against the civilian population of Byelorussia."

Judge Nadon added that "the Minister [of Citizenship and Immigration] has not proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent participated in the commission of war crimes or that he committed such crimes. The minister did not call any witnesses who could link the respondent to the atrocities committed against the civilian population."

Three members of Mr. Katriuk's battalion, two living in Canada and one in Ukraine, were called as witnesses; none substantiated the prosecution's charges.

Ultimately, however, Judge Nadon decided that Mr. Katriuk would not have been admitted to Canada in 1951 on security grounds because he had been a collaborator, because of his "false presentation" and because he was a "user of false or fictitious names or documents" as defined by the Canadian Cabinet's Directive No. 14, issued on October 28, 1949.

The Federal Court justice did so despite noting that "on October 10, 1958, the registrar of Canadian Citizenship, Mr. J.E. Duggan, wrote to the chief, Admissions Division, Immigration Branch, in the following terms:

"... Mr. and Mrs. Katriuk were lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence August 14, 1951, under the names of Maria Stephanie Schpirka and Nicolas Schpirka. They now state that their correct names are Marie [sic] Stephanie and Vladimir Katriuk ..."

Most of the records pertaining to Mr. Katriuk's applications for landed immigrant status were destroyed, yet Judge Nadon found that had Mr. Katriuk revealed "his employer" (i.e., Germany's occupying forces) on a consular information form used at the time, he would have been barred from entering Canada.

One record was found, and Judge Nadon used it to point out a discrepancy in the nationality claimed by Mr. Katriuk. In the register of the ship on which Mr. Katriuk arrived (under an assumed name), he declared he was Ukrainian by nationality, but on his application for Canadian citizenship he declared his nationality as Romanian. However, earlier in the text of his decision, Judge Nadon wrote: "In his application, Mr. Katriuk stated that he was born in Luzhany, Romania (Ukraine), that he was a Romanian citizen and that his ethnic origin was Ukrainian."

Judge Nadon also mentioned a 1958 Department of Immigration memorandum, apparently based on a 1957 affidavit accompanying his application for Canadian citizenship (not available in evidence), in which Mr. Katriuk allegedly falsely stated that he had "found refuge" in France, while in actuality he had been transferred into the country along with his German unit. The judge pointed to this as a further material misrepresentation.

UCCLA asks for a stay

In reaction to the verdict, Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association Chairman John Gregorovich on January 31 issued a plea that a deportation order against Mr. Katriuk be stayed. "Thousands of so-called 'refugees' are admitted into this country every year," Mr. Gregorovich was quoted as saying in a UCCLA media release, "many of whom are caught with false identity papers, or have none at all."

Mr. Gregorovich pointed to the fact that "The Canadian Ministry of Justice's lawyers even acknowledged during his hearing that there was 'no direct evidence' to back the contention that he committed any war crimes."

"We are calling upon the minister of justice, the Honorable Anne McLellan, and all other members of the Cabinet to stay this deportation order and allow Mr. Katriuk to remain in Canada."

Nestor Woychyshyn, the junior defense counsel in the case, said that other motions for a stay, already dismissed by Judge Nadon, will be appealed.

Dueck cleared of charges

Mr. Dueck stood accused of committing war crimes as deputy chief of police in the Selidovka district near Donetsk, Ukraine, during the Nazi occupation of the area. On December 21, 1998, Federal Court Judge Marc Noël determined that Mr. Dueck had not been a member of the police in Selidovka, only a translator/interpreter; that testimony against him had been gathered primarily by the KGB in a mass meeting in the 1980s; and that he had not lied in applying for Canadian citizenship.

The court found no grounds to substantiate charges Mr. Dueck participated in the killing of a Jewish family, or that he committed acts of random violence against Ukrainian civilians in the area.

It did find that a German document identifying Mr. Dueck as a member of the Schutzpolizei in Selidovka was "inaccurate," since according to the testimony of the prosecution's expert witness, Dr. Frank Golczewski of the University of Hamburg Department of East European History, there were no Schutzpolizei units in the area.

Mr. Dueck managed to escape sanction for having been a collaborator (as an interpreter for the auxiliary police) because, according to the text of the decision, the prosecution "never contemplated [to] seek the revocation of [Mr. Dueck's] citizenship because he failed to disclose his activities as a translator or his [subsequent] membership in the police."

The court contended that Mr. Dueck had arrived at a time, in July 1948, when Canada's policy on screening of collaborators and war criminals had not yet been set by the country's Cabinet (that came in October 1949). Judge Noël wrote: "I do not believe that in July of 1948 security officers had the legal authority to reject [Mr. Dueck] on the ground that he had collaborated with the enemy during W.W. II."

Immediately prior to his final conclusion, the judge wrote: "That [Mr. Dueck] would have been barred from entry if he had truthfully disclosed his past by reference to considerations which were extraneous to the [Immigration] act and the applicable orders-in-council, cannot alter the fact that he was lawfully admitted to Canada."

This aspect of Judge Noël's decision was apparently not considered by Judge Nadon in deciding the similar Katriuk case.

History of immigration policy outlined

Judge Noël's decision provides an extensive history of the formation of Canada's security screening policy, which was affected by the scandal caused by Soviet defector Igor Gouzenko's revelations in 1945 of a spy ring operating in the country, and an initial willingness to exempt individuals "who were resident in England, France, Norway, Greece, Belgium, the Netherlands or Denmark" from security screening.

According to Judge Noël's decision, at a January 30, 1947, meeting of the Cabinet's Security Panel it was decided that "The preferred option was to focus all screening on applicants originating from Eastern Europe and to allow other applicants otherwise eligible to immigrate to enter without screening."

Mr. Dueck was deemed by Canada's immigration authorities to have arrived from Austria, whose potential applicants for landing in Canada were to be screened by Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel. The court determined that "it is questionable, however, whether the RCMP had sufficient resources to fully implement and thus screen all [displaced persons], whether by personal interview or paper screening."

In addition, Judge Noël also ruled that prior to October 1949, "in my opinion ... clearance by the RCMP was an administrative and not a legal requirement for the issue of landing documents."

It was also revealed that individuals were screened in part because "it was a matter of high concern that the Soviets were known to resort to blackmail to enlist agents."

| Home Page |