data/curated/drafts/equivalency-pairings-draft.json

{
  "_draft": "DRAFT FOR MAINTAINER REVIEW 2026-07-23 — three new pairings for data/curated/us_equivalency.json. Every Canadian maximum verified against the corpus text of the current C-46/IRPA consolidations. NOT deployed: append to the 'pairings' array, bump 'reviewed', then py -m canlex.commentary && py -m canlex.embed && eval && push.",
  "pairings": [
    {
      "id": "weapons-carry",
      "us_terms": ["unlawful carrying of a weapon", "CCW violation", "carrying a concealed weapon", "unlawful possession of a firearm", "felon in possession", "UCW"],
      "canadian_offence": "Criminal Code s. 90 (carrying a concealed weapon); s. 91 (unauthorized possession of a firearm); s. 92 (possession knowing possession is unauthorized); s. 88 (possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace)",
      "penalty": "Hybrid throughout; indictable maximums verified: s. 90 five years; s. 91 five years; s. 92 ten years; s. 88 ten years",
      "branch": "SPLITS ON THE EQUIVALENT: ss. 90/91 (5 years) -> CRIMINALITY, IRPA s. 36(2)(b); ss. 92/88 (10 years) -> SERIOUS CRIMINALITY, s. 36(1)(b)",
      "status": "guidance-only",
      "analysis": "The most common US weapons conviction — carrying without a permit — usually equates to s. 90 or s. 91 (five-year maximums): criminality, deemed rehabilitation available after 10 years. The branch escalates to serious criminality where the record shows KNOWLEDGE the possession was unauthorized in a s. 92 sense, or a dangerous purpose (s. 88). 'Felon in possession' convictions typically map to s. 91/92 — the s. 92 knowledge element is often satisfied on those facts. The Hill evidence branch matters more here than for most pairings: US statutes bundle conduct Canada splits across four provisions.",
      "caveats": [
        "Constitutional-carry states: lawful-there conduct can still equate to a Canadian offence, but with no US conviction only the act branch (s. 36(2)(c)) is in play.",
        "A weapon lawful in the US but prohibited in Canada (e.g. brass knuckles) engages the classification regulations (SOR/98-462) — check the device, not just the conduct.",
        "Using a firearm in the commission of an offence (s. 85) carries consecutive mandatory minimums — an aggravated US charge deserves its own equivalency analysis."
      ],
      "authorities": []
    },
    {
      "id": "sexual-assault",
      "us_terms": ["sexual assault", "criminal sexual conduct", "sexual battery", "rape", "statutory rape", "sexual abuse"],
      "canadian_offence": "Criminal Code s. 271 (sexual assault); s. 151 (sexual interference, complainant under 16); ss. 272/273 (weapon/bodily harm/aggravated)",
      "penalty": "s. 271 hybrid, indictable maximum 10 years (14 where the complainant is under 16); s. 151 hybrid, 14 years with a one-year mandatory minimum; verified from the corpus text",
      "branch": "SERIOUS CRIMINALITY — IRPA s. 36(1)(b) in effectively every configuration (every plausible equivalent carries a 10-year-or-greater maximum)",
      "status": "guidance-only",
      "analysis": "Any US sexual-offence conviction equates to a 10-years-or-more Canadian offence: serious criminality, no deemed rehabilitation ever, individual rehabilitation application (5 years post-sentence) or TRP the only routes. 'Statutory rape' variants map to s. 151 (14-year maximum) — age thresholds differ by state, so verify the victim's age against Canada's under-16 line (and the close-in-age exceptions in s. 150.1) via the Hill evidence branch.",
      "caveats": [
        "US registration-only dispositions (e.g. a deferred adjudication that still requires registration) remain step-1 questions — registration does not itself make a disposition a conviction.",
        "Canada's s. 150.1 close-in-age defences can defeat equivalency for peer-age statutory-rape convictions — this is the classic Li point that available Canadian defences form part of the comparison.",
        "Misdemeanor 'sexual battery' in some states covers non-consensual touching that still equates to s. 271 — the 10-year branch does not depend on the US felony label."
      ],
      "authorities": [
        {"cite": "Li v Canada (MCI), [1997] 1 FC 235 (CA)", "court": "Federal Court of Appeal", "holding": "Equivalency compares essential elements including available defences; no retrial of the foreign case."}
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "immigration-fraud",
      "us_terms": ["visa fraud", "immigration fraud", "false statement on immigration application", "alien smuggling", "harboring an alien", "marriage fraud"],
      "canadian_offence": "IRPA s. 127 (misrepresentation offence; penalty s. 128); IRPA ss. 122-123 (document offences); IRPA s. 117 (organizing entry — smuggling); Criminal Code s. 368 (use of forged document)",
      "penalty": "s. 128: hybrid, indictable maximum 5 years; s. 123: up to 14 years for document use/trafficking; s. 117: up to life (with mandatory minimums where aggravated); verified from the corpus text",
      "branch": "SPLITS: false statements/marriage fraud -> s. 127/128 (5 years) = CRIMINALITY, s. 36(2)(b); document fraud with use/trafficking -> s. 123 (14 years) = SERIOUS CRIMINALITY; alien smuggling -> s. 117 = SERIOUS CRIMINALITY",
      "status": "guidance-only",
      "analysis": "A US conviction for lying on an immigration form (18 USC 1546 false-statement branch) generally equates to IRPA s. 127: five-year maximum, criminality only — deemed rehabilitation available. The same US statute's document-use branch reaches s. 123's 14-year maximum: serious criminality. Alien smuggling (8 USC 1324) equates to IRPA s. 117 — serious criminality, and s. 37 organized-criminality may also be in play. NOTE: a misrepresentation to CANADIAN authorities separately grounds s. 40 inadmissibility without any conviction; this pairing addresses foreign convictions only.",
      "caveats": [
        "18 USC 1546 is a classic Hill problem: one US provision straddles two Canadian branches — the record of what was actually done decides between s. 127 (5 years) and s. 123 (14 years).",
        "'Harboring' convictions vary widely; minor-assistance facts may equate to s. 117's lower tiers or fail equivalency entirely — evidence branch required.",
        "Marriage fraud: the US conviction equates to s. 127 (criminality), but the underlying facts may independently engage s. 40 misrepresentation if made to IRCC/CBSA."
      ],
      "authorities": []
    }
  ]
}