US-disposition conviction helper: curated dataset + canlex_us_disposition tool

Phase 1 of the IRPA s. 36 equivalency helper the user requested: given a US
criminal disposition (and optionally a state), is it a "conviction" for
s. 36(1)(b)/(2)(b)? A new doc_type 'commentary' carries the first content
CanLex AUTHORS rather than mirrors, under strict honesty rules: every chunk
opens with a curated-analysis-not-law banner, every entry carries a status
flag (settled / judicially-considered / guidance-only / no-authority), cites
its authorities, and no-authority entries say so explicitly and label their
reasoning as interpretation. The user reviewed the interpretive entries
before this ship (reviewed: 2026-07-10).

Dataset: 12 disposition types with state variations (FL withholding, TX/MD
deferrals, NY ACD vs MA CWOF, CA/AZ set-asides, MO SIS...) + 2 methodology
chunks. Every citation verified in-session against fetched full text or the
IRB Legal Services 'Criminal Refusals' paper: Saini 2001 FCA 311 (three-part
foreign-pardon test, quoted at para 24), Burgon [1991] 3 FC 44 (CA), Barnett
(1996) 33 Imm LR (2d) 1, Drake (IMM-4050-98: an Alford plea grounds a
committed-the-act finding), Lew, Kalicharan, IRPA s. 36(3). A widely-cited
'Lu v Canada, 2011 FC 1476' failed verification (it is a Taiwan investor
case, not a withheld-adjudication authority) and is documented as excluded.

canlex_us_disposition(disposition, state?) does token-matched lookup with a
state boost, an 'all' listing mode, honest no-match fallback, and a graceful
message when the dataset is absent. Commentary chunks are searchable
(uncapped like benefits; never force-pulled as primary law). ENF 2 ingestion
and offence equivalency (phase 2) deliberately deferred.

Eval 159-Q: 0.81/0.95/0.97/0.99/0.88 (Hit@3 +0.01, Hit@5 -0.01 on the
borderline Khosa/Chieu pair at rank 6 -- no commentary chunk displaces any
gold). 75 tests pass.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Dockerfile

@@ -28,6 +28,9 @@ RUN pip install --no-cache-dir -r requirements.txt
 COPY --chown=app:app canlex/ ./canlex/
 COPY --chown=app:app data/processed/*.json ./data/processed/
 COPY --chown=app:app data/processed/embeddings.npz ./data/processed/
+# Curated commentary datasets (the canlex_us_disposition tool reads the
+# structured source file directly, not just its processed chunks).
+COPY --chown=app:app data/curated/ ./data/curated/
 
 USER app
 ENV HOME=/app \

canlex/commentary.py

@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
+"""Ingest CanLex's curated commentary datasets into searchable chunks.
+
+Commentary is the one doc_type CanLex AUTHORS rather than mirrors: structured
+legal-analysis datasets (currently the US-dispositions helper -- whether each
+kind of US state criminal disposition is a "conviction" for IRPA s. 36
+purposes). Every chunk is banner-labelled as commentary, every proposition
+carries its authorities, and entries with no authority say so explicitly and
+flag their reasoning as interpretation. The source of truth is
+data/curated/us_dispositions.json, which is reviewed by the user before it
+ships; this module just renders it into corpus chunks.
+
+    py -m canlex.commentary
+"""
+import json
+
+from .config import DATA_DIR, PROCESSED_DIR
+
+CURATED = DATA_DIR / "curated" / "us_dispositions.json"
+OUT = PROCESSED_DIR / "commentary.json"
+
+ACT_CODE = "US-DISP"
+ACT_SHORT = "US Dispositions Helper"
+ACT_NAME = ("US criminal dispositions and the IRPA 'conviction' concept "
+            "(curated CanLex commentary)")
+
+BANNER = ("CURATED ANALYSIS -- commentary compiled for CanLex, not a source "
+          "of law. Verify against the cited authorities before relying on it.")
+
+_STATUS_LABEL = {
+    "settled": "Settled by binding authority",
+    "judicially-considered": "Judicially considered (persuasive authority)",
+    "guidance-only": "IRCC guidance only -- no judicial authority located",
+    "no-authority": "NO AUTHORITY LOCATED -- reasoned interpretation only",
+}
+
+
+def _entry_text(e):
+    """Render one disposition entry as a readable, retrieval-friendly block."""
+    lines = [BANNER, ""]
+    lines.append(f"Disposition: {'; '.join(e['names'])}")
+    lines.append(f"Is it a conviction for IRPA s. 36 purposes: "
+                 f"{e['is_conviction'].upper()}")
+    lines.append(f"Authority status: {_STATUS_LABEL[e['status']]}")
+    lines.append("")
+    lines.append(e["analysis"])
+    if e.get("state_variations"):
+        lines.append("")
+        lines.append("State variations:")
+        for v in e["state_variations"]:
+            flag = f" (conviction: {v['is_conviction']})" if v.get("is_conviction") else ""
+            lines.append(f"- {v['state']}{flag}: {v['note']}")
+    if e.get("authorities"):
+        lines.append("")
+        lines.append("Authorities:")
+        for a in e["authorities"]:
+            pin = f", {a['pin']}" if a.get("pin") else ""
+            lines.append(f"- {a['cite']} ({a['court']}{pin}): {a['holding']}")
+    if e.get("guidance"):
+        lines.append("")
+        lines.append("IRCC guidance (cited by reference; not reproduced here):")
+        for g in e["guidance"]:
+            lines.append(f"- {g['ref']}: {g['note']}")
+    if e.get("interpretation"):
+        lines.append("")
+        lines.append("INTERPRETATION (no direct authority -- this is CanLex's "
+                     "reasoned view from the governing principles; treat it as "
+                     "a starting point, not an answer): "
+                     + e["interpretation"])
+    return "\n".join(lines)
+
+
+def build():
+    data = json.loads(CURATED.read_text(encoding="utf-8"))
+    chunks = []
+    for e in data.get("methodology", []):
+        chunks.append({
+            "id": f"commentary-method-{e['id']}",
+            "doc_type": "commentary",
+            "act_code": ACT_CODE,
+            "act_short": ACT_SHORT,
+            "act_name": ACT_NAME,
+            "section": e["id"],
+            "marginal_note": e["title"],
+            "part": "Methodology",
+            "division": "",
+            "heading": e["title"],
+            "text": BANNER + "\n\n" + e["text"],
+            "history": "",
+            "last_amended": "",
+            "current_to": data.get("reviewed", ""),
+            "citation": f"{ACT_SHORT} — {e['title']}",
+            "source_url": "",
+        })
+    for e in data.get("dispositions", []):
+        chunks.append({
+            "id": f"commentary-disp-{e['id']}",
+            "doc_type": "commentary",
+            "act_code": ACT_CODE,
+            "act_short": ACT_SHORT,
+            "act_name": ACT_NAME,
+            "section": e["id"],
+            "marginal_note": e["names"][0],
+            "part": "US dispositions",
+            "division": "",
+            "heading": (f"Is a US {e['names'][0]} a conviction for IRPA "
+                        f"s. 36? ({e['is_conviction']})"),
+            "text": _entry_text(e),
+            "history": "",
+            "last_amended": "",
+            "current_to": data.get("reviewed", ""),
+            "citation": f"{ACT_SHORT} — {e['names'][0]}",
+            "source_url": "",
+        })
+    PROCESSED_DIR.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True)
+    OUT.write_text(json.dumps(chunks, ensure_ascii=False, indent=1),
+                   encoding="utf-8")
+    print(f"{len(chunks)} commentary chunks "
+          f"({len(data.get('dispositions', []))} dispositions, "
+          f"{len(data.get('methodology', []))} methodology) -> {OUT}")
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    build()

canlex/index.py

@@ -367,7 +367,10 @@ class LegislationIndex:
         m = _PIECE_ID.search(c.get("id", ""))
         if m and doc_type in PRIMARY_DOC_TYPES:
             return ("piece", c["id"][:m.start()])  # pieces of one chunk together
-        if doc_type in PRIMARY_DOC_TYPES or doc_type == "benefits":
+        # Commentary entries are like benefits chunks: each is a distinct
+        # curated topic, so capping the dataset as one source would starve a
+        # multi-entry question; not PRIMARY, so never force-pulled as law.
+        if doc_type in PRIMARY_DOC_TYPES or doc_type in ("benefits", "commentary"):
             return None
         if doc_type == "memorandum":
             return ("memorandum", c["section"])   # act_code is a shared constant

canlex/server.py

@@ -194,6 +194,13 @@ def _format_section(c: dict, related=None) -> str:
         age = _guidance_age_note(c["current_to"])
         if age:
             lines.append(age)
+    elif doc_type == "commentary":
+        lines.append("_**CURATED ANALYSIS — CanLex commentary, not a source "
+                     "of law.** A curated synthesis of the cited authorities; "
+                     "where it says no authority exists, the analysis is "
+                     "reasoned interpretation only. Always verify against the "
+                     "cited cases and guidance before relying on it._")
+        lines.append(f"(entry reviewed {_stated(c['current_to'])})")
     elif c.get("status") == "not-in-force":
         # Enacted but not yet in force: pending law from the Act's AMENDMENTS
         # NOT IN FORCE schedule. Make it impossible to mistake for current law.
@@ -280,8 +287,10 @@ class SearchInput(BaseModel):
         "regulations), 'memorandum' (CBSA D-Memoranda), 'agreement' (collective "
         "agreements), 'directive' (NJC directives), 'caselaw' (court and "
         "tribunal decisions), 'delegation' (IRPA/IRPR delegation and "
-        "designation instruments), or 'benefits' (public-service health and "
-        "dental plan member booklets). Omit to search all.",
+        "designation instruments), 'benefits' (public-service health and "
+        "dental plan member booklets), or 'commentary' (CanLex's curated "
+        "analysis datasets, e.g. US dispositions vs the IRPA 'conviction' "
+        "concept). Omit to search all.",
     )
 
 
@@ -394,6 +403,159 @@ def canlex_get_section(params: GetSectionInput) -> str:
     return GROUNDING_NOTE + "\n\n" + _format_section(section, index.related(section))
 
 
+class DispositionInput(BaseModel):
+    """Input for canlex_us_disposition."""
+    model_config = ConfigDict(str_strip_whitespace=True, extra="forbid")
+
+    disposition: str = Field(
+        ...,
+        description="The US disposition, in the traveller's or record's own "
+        "words, e.g. 'deferred adjudication', 'nolo contendere plea', "
+        "'withheld adjudication', 'expunged conviction', 'ACD' -- or 'all' "
+        "for the complete breakdown of every covered disposition type and "
+        "state variation.",
+        min_length=2, max_length=200,
+    )
+    state: Optional[str] = Field(
+        default=None,
+        description="Optional US state (name or 2-letter code), e.g. 'TX' or "
+        "'Florida' -- the analysis can vary by state.",
+        max_length=30,
+    )
+
+
+def _load_dispositions():
+    """The curated US-dispositions dataset (data/curated/us_dispositions.json)."""
+    from canlex.config import DATA_DIR
+    path = DATA_DIR / "curated" / "us_dispositions.json"
+    if not path.exists():
+        return None
+    return json.loads(path.read_text(encoding="utf-8"))
+
+
+_STATE_NAMES = {
+    "al": "alabama", "ak": "alaska", "az": "arizona", "ar": "arkansas",
+    "ca": "california", "co": "colorado", "ct": "connecticut", "de": "delaware",
+    "fl": "florida", "ga": "georgia", "hi": "hawaii", "id": "idaho",
+    "il": "illinois", "in": "indiana", "ia": "iowa", "ks": "kansas",
+    "ky": "kentucky", "la": "louisiana", "me": "maine", "md": "maryland",
+    "ma": "massachusetts", "mi": "michigan", "mn": "minnesota",
+    "ms": "mississippi", "mo": "missouri", "mt": "montana", "ne": "nebraska",
+    "nv": "nevada", "nh": "new hampshire", "nj": "new jersey",
+    "nm": "new mexico", "ny": "new york", "nc": "north carolina",
+    "nd": "north dakota", "oh": "ohio", "ok": "oklahoma", "or": "oregon",
+    "pa": "pennsylvania", "ri": "rhode island", "sc": "south carolina",
+    "sd": "south dakota", "tn": "tennessee", "tx": "texas", "ut": "utah",
+    "vt": "vermont", "va": "virginia", "wa": "washington",
+    "wv": "west virginia", "wi": "wisconsin", "wy": "wyoming",
+}
+
+
+def _match_dispositions(data, disposition, state):
+    """Score dataset entries against the query; return the best matches.
+
+    Token-overlap over the entry's names/aliases, with a bonus when the
+    entry's state_variations cover the requested state. Deliberately simple:
+    the vocabulary is small and controlled."""
+    q_tokens = set(re.findall(r"[a-z0-9]+", disposition.lower()))
+    state_lc = (state or "").strip().lower()
+    state_name = _STATE_NAMES.get(state_lc, state_lc)
+    scored = []
+    for e in data.get("dispositions", []):
+        best = 0.0
+        for name in e["names"]:
+            n_tokens = set(re.findall(r"[a-z0-9]+", name.lower()))
+            if not n_tokens:
+                continue
+            overlap = len(q_tokens & n_tokens) / len(n_tokens)
+            best = max(best, overlap)
+        if state_name and any(
+                state_name in (v.get("state", "").lower())
+                or v.get("state", "").lower() in (state_lc, state_name)
+                for v in e.get("state_variations", [])):
+            best += 0.15
+        if best > 0.3:
+            scored.append((best, e))
+    scored.sort(key=lambda t: -t[0])
+    return [e for _, e in scored[:2]]
+
+
+@mcp.tool(name="canlex_us_disposition",
+          annotations={"title": "US Disposition vs IRPA 'Conviction'", **_READONLY})
+def canlex_us_disposition(params: DispositionInput) -> str:
+    """Assess whether a US criminal disposition is a "conviction" for IRPA
+    s. 36 inadmissibility purposes, from CanLex's curated, authority-cited
+    dataset of US disposition types (deferred adjudication, withheld
+    adjudication, nolo pleas, expungements, state pardons, diversion, and
+    more), with state-by-state variations.
+
+    This is step 1 of a s. 36(1)(b)/(2)(b) analysis (is there a conviction at
+    all?); offence equivalency (what Canadian offence it would correspond to)
+    is a separate, fact-specific step. Every answer is CURATED COMMENTARY,
+    not law: entries cite their authorities, and entries with no authority
+    say so and label their reasoning as interpretation.
+
+    Args:
+        params (DispositionInput): Validated input containing:
+            - disposition (str): The US disposition, as described.
+            - state (Optional[str]): US state, if known.
+
+    Returns:
+        str: Markdown -- the matching entry/entries with authorities and
+        status flags, or the governing principles plus an honest no-entry
+        statement when nothing matches.
+    """
+    from canlex.commentary import BANNER, _entry_text
+    data = _load_dispositions()
+    if data is None:
+        return ("The curated US-dispositions dataset is not present in this "
+                "deployment. Use canlex_search_legislation (doc_type "
+                "'caselaw') for the governing principles: Canada (MCI) v "
+                "Saini, 2001 FCA 311, and IRPA s. 36(3).")
+    if params.disposition.strip().lower() in ("all", "list", "list all", "*"):
+        lines = [BANNER, "",
+                 "Every covered disposition type (and state variation), with "
+                 "its conviction verdict for IRPA s. 36. Query a specific "
+                 "disposition for the full analysis and authorities.", ""]
+        for e in data.get("dispositions", []):
+            lines.append(f"- {e['names'][0]} -- conviction: "
+                         f"{e['is_conviction'].upper()} "
+                         f"[{e['status']}]")
+            for v in e.get("state_variations", []):
+                if v.get("state", "").lower() == "general":
+                    continue
+                flag = (v.get("is_conviction") or e["is_conviction"]).upper()
+                lines.append(f"    - {v['state']}: {flag}")
+        lines.append("")
+        lines.append("Reminder: even a non-conviction disposition can ground "
+                     "inadmissibility under the act branch, IRPA "
+                     "s. 36(1)(c)/(2)(c).")
+        return "\n".join(lines)
+    matches = _match_dispositions(data, params.disposition, params.state)
+    parts = []
+    if matches:
+        for e in matches:
+            parts.append(_entry_text(e))
+    else:
+        parts.append(BANNER)
+        parts.append(
+            f"No curated entry matches '{params.disposition}'"
+            + (f" ({params.state})" if params.state else "") + ". "
+            "That does not mean the disposition is or is not a conviction -- "
+            "it means CanLex has not analyzed this disposition type. Apply "
+            "the governing principles (below) to the disposition's actual "
+            "features: was guilt admitted or found? is the disposition final? "
+            "does an analogous Canadian non-conviction regime exist?")
+    for m in data.get("methodology", []):
+        if m.get("id") == "conviction-framework":
+            parts.append("---\n\nGoverning framework:\n\n" + m["text"])
+            break
+    parts.append("Confirm any cited decision's current status with "
+                 "canlex_case, and retrieve its full text with "
+                 "canlex_search_legislation (doc_type 'caselaw').")
+    return "\n\n".join(parts)
+
+
 @mcp.tool(name="canlex_list_acts",
           annotations={"title": "List Loaded Legislation", **_READONLY})
 def canlex_list_acts() -> str:

data/curated/us_dispositions.json

@@ -0,0 +1,199 @@
+{
+  "reviewed": "2026-07-10",
+  "_provenance": "Authored 2026-07-10 from sources verified in-session: IRPA s. 36 full text (CanLex corpus, current to 2026-03-02); Saini, Burgon, Barnett, Lew and Kalicharan as discussed and quoted in the IRB Legal Services paper 'Sponsorship Appeals, Ch. 2 — Criminal Refusals' (Jan 1, 2008, irb-cisr.gc.ca); Drake v Canada full text fetched from the Federal Court's decisions database (item 40309). Entries marked no-authority reflect that no reported Canadian decision was located after search; their interpretations are CanLex's reasoning from the verified framework. NOTE: 'Lu v Canada, 2011 FC 1476' circulates in practitioner commentary as a withheld-adjudication authority — verification against the actual decision shows it is a Taiwan investor-visa case, NOT a withheld-adjudication case; it is deliberately NOT cited here.",
+  "methodology": [
+    {
+      "id": "conviction-framework",
+      "title": "When is a foreign disposition a 'conviction' for IRPA s. 36?",
+      "text": "IRPA s. 36(1)(b) and 36(2)(b) require a CONVICTION outside Canada (for an offence that, if committed in Canada, would meet the seriousness threshold). Whether a foreign disposition is a conviction is a question of Canadian immigration law, informed by the foreign law's own effect.\n\nGoverning principles, each from verified authority:\n\n1. A disposition the foreign law itself deems a non-conviction may be respected in Canada where the legal systems are similar. Canada (MEI) v Burgon, [1991] 3 FC 44 (CA): a UK probation order that UK law deemed not a conviction was held not a conviction for Canadian immigration purposes, because the UK and Canadian systems are so similar (Canada's analogue being the conditional/absolute discharge under Criminal Code s. 730, which by s. 730(3) deems the offender 'not to have been convicted').\n\n2. 'Convicted' means a conviction that has not been expunged (Burgon). A foreign expungement is recognized on the same system-similarity logic: Barnett v Canada (1996), 33 Imm LR (2d) 1 (FCTD) recognized a UK Rehabilitation of Offenders Act expungement.\n\n3. For foreign discharges and pardons, Canada (MCI) v Saini, 2001 FCA 311 at para 24 requires three elements: (1) the foreign legal system as a whole must be similar to that of Canada; (2) the aim, content and effect of the specific foreign law must be similar to Canadian law; and (3) there must be no valid reason not to recognize the effect of the foreign law. Saini adds that absent evidence of the motivating considerations behind a foreign pardon, the decision-maker is not bound by it, and that the sheer seriousness of the crime (there, hijacking) can itself be a valid reason to withhold recognition.\n\n4. THE ACT BRANCH ALWAYS REMAINS: even where a disposition is NOT a conviction, IRPA s. 36(1)(c) and 36(2)(c) make a person inadmissible for COMMITTING an act abroad that is an offence there and would be an offence in Canada, proved on a balance of probabilities (s. 36(3)(d)). Drake v Canada (FCTD, IMM-4050-98, 11 March 1999): an Alford plea (a guilty plea maintaining factual innocence) properly grounded a committed-the-offence finding on a balance of probabilities. No non-conviction disposition answers the act branch.\n\n5. Deeming rules (s. 36(3)): hybrid offences are deemed indictable even if prosecuted summarily (a); a Canadian record suspension or a final acquittal removes the conviction basis (b); rehabilitation -- individual or deemed (IRPR s. 18.1) -- cures foreign convictions/acts after the prescribed period (c); Canadian youth-justice findings are excluded (e).\n\n6. Timing: a person convicted at trial is convicted notwithstanding an unexhausted appeal (Kalicharan, [1976] 2 FC 123 (TD)), but appellate substitution of a discharge means the conviction is deemed never to have been passed (Kalicharan; Lew, [1974] 2 FC 700 (CA)).\n\nIRCC/IRB guidance: IRB Legal Services, Sponsorship Appeals Ch. 2 'Criminal Refusals' (Jan 2008) synthesizes this jurisprudence; IRCC's ENF 2 manual covers the same ground operationally (cited here by name only)."
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "equivalency-preview",
+      "title": "Step 2 -- offence equivalency (not covered by this helper)",
+      "text": "Once a conviction (or committed act) is established, s. 36(1)(b)/(c) and 36(2)(b)/(c) require EQUIVALENCY: the foreign offence must correspond to a Canadian federal offence of the required seriousness, assessed against Canadian law as it reads at the time of the admissibility decision. Equivalency is fact-specific per offence and is not tabulated by this helper -- retrieve the governing case law (Hill v Canada (MEI) and its line) with canlex_search_legislation, and remember the s. 36(3)(a) rule that hybrid offences count as indictable."
+    }
+  ],
+  "dispositions": [
+    {
+      "id": "state-pardon",
+      "names": ["state pardon", "governor's pardon", "pardon board pardon", "executive clemency"],
+      "is_conviction": "depends",
+      "status": "judicially-considered",
+      "analysis": "The recognition test for foreign pardons is settled: Saini's three elements (similar legal system; similar aim, content and effect of the specific law; no valid reason to refuse recognition). US state legal systems will generally satisfy the first element, so the analysis turns on what the particular state's pardon actually does and why it was granted. A full unconditional pardon that under state law blots out the conviction, granted on rehabilitation or innocence grounds, is a strong candidate for recognition (compare a Canadian record suspension, IRPA s. 36(3)(b)). A pardon that merely restores civil rights (a common limited form) does not resemble a Canadian record suspension in effect and is unlikely to be recognized. Saini also holds the decision-maker is not bound by a pardon absent evidence of its motivating considerations, and that offence seriousness can alone justify non-recognition. No reported decision applying Saini to a specific US state pardon was located; the framework itself is binding FCA authority.",
+      "state_variations": [
+        {"state": "general", "note": "Pardon effect varies sharply by state: some (e.g. full pardons in some states) expunge or seal; many only restore civil rights and expressly leave the conviction of record. Obtain the state statute or pardon instrument and match its effect against a Canadian record suspension.", "is_conviction": "depends"}
+      ],
+      "authorities": [
+        {"cite": "Canada (MCI) v Saini, 2001 FCA 311", "court": "Federal Court of Appeal", "pin": "para 24", "holding": "Three-part test for recognizing a foreign discharge or pardon; decision-maker not bound absent the pardon's motivating considerations; seriousness of the offence can be a valid reason to refuse recognition."}
+      ],
+      "guidance": [
+        {"ref": "IRB Legal Services, Sponsorship Appeals Ch. 2 (Criminal Refusals), Jan 2008", "note": "Synthesizes Saini and the foreign-pardon jurisprudence; notes an acquittal based solely on a victim's pardon is not similar to Canadian law and is not recognized."}
+      ],
+      "interpretation": ""
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "expungement",
+      "names": ["expungement", "expunged conviction", "record sealing", "sealed record", "vacated conviction"],
+      "is_conviction": "depends",
+      "status": "judicially-considered",
+      "analysis": "'Convicted' in s. 36 means a conviction that has not been expunged (Burgon), and a foreign expungement under a rehabilitation-type statute can be recognized where the legal systems and the specific law's aim and effect are similar to Canada's (Barnett, recognizing a UK Rehabilitation of Offenders Act expungement; the Saini three-part test now governs). Two distinctions matter for US records. First, expungement-for-legal-error is stronger than expungement-as-relief: where a court vacates a conviction as void (as in Drake, where the verdict was vacated ab initio), the conviction basis is gone -- though any replacement plea or the underlying conduct still counts. Second, most US 'expungement' and sealing statutes limit access to the record without destroying the conviction's legal existence (the record can often be revived in later proceedings) -- an effect closer to sealing than to a Canadian record suspension, which weakens the second Saini element. The disposition documents and the state statute's actual effect are decisive.",
+      "state_variations": [
+        {"state": "general", "note": "Terminology is not reliable across states: 'expungement' may mean destruction, sealing, set-aside, or dismissal. Assess the statute's effect, not its label.", "is_conviction": "depends"}
+      ],
+      "authorities": [
+        {"cite": "Canada (MEI) v Burgon, [1991] 3 FC 44 (CA)", "court": "Federal Court of Appeal", "pin": "", "holding": "'Convicted' means a conviction that has not been expunged; a UK deemed-non-conviction disposition was respected because the legal systems are similar."},
+        {"cite": "Barnett v Canada (1996), 33 Imm LR (2d) 1 (FCTD)", "court": "Federal Court (Trial Division)", "pin": "", "holding": "UK Rehabilitation of Offenders Act expungement recognized on the Burgon rationale: the person could not be said to have been convicted."},
+        {"cite": "Canada (MCI) v Saini, 2001 FCA 311", "court": "Federal Court of Appeal", "pin": "para 24", "holding": "The three-part recognition test that now governs foreign discharges and pardons."},
+        {"cite": "Drake v Canada (FCTD, IMM-4050-98, 11 March 1999)", "court": "Federal Court (Trial Division)", "pin": "", "holding": "A US jury verdict vacated ab initio removed the conviction basis for the removal order -- but the subsequent plea to the same conduct still grounded inadmissibility."}
+      ],
+      "guidance": [
+        {"ref": "IRB Legal Services, Sponsorship Appeals Ch. 2 (Criminal Refusals), Jan 2008", "note": "States the expungement principle and collects the Burgon/Barnett line."}
+      ],
+      "interpretation": ""
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "alford-plea",
+      "names": ["Alford plea", "Alford guilty plea", "best-interests plea"],
+      "is_conviction": "yes",
+      "status": "judicially-considered",
+      "analysis": "An Alford plea (North Carolina v Alford: a guilty plea entered while maintaining factual innocence) is a guilty plea, and the resulting judgment is an ordinary conviction under US law -- nothing in the disposition resembles a Canadian non-conviction regime, so there is no Burgon/Saini basis to treat it otherwise. Drake v Canada is direct Federal Court authority on the related act branch: the Court held it was no error to rely on an Alford plea to find, on a balance of probabilities, that the person had committed the offence abroad, noting the plea was entered because the risk of conviction on the evidence was high. So even where the plea's conviction status could be argued, the plea itself supports a committed-the-act finding under s. 36(1)(c)/(2)(c).",
+      "state_variations": [],
+      "authorities": [
+        {"cite": "Drake v Canada (FCTD, IMM-4050-98, 11 March 1999)", "court": "Federal Court (Trial Division)", "pin": "para 18", "holding": "No error in relying on an Alford plea to a Washington State charge to find, on a balance of probabilities, that the applicant had committed the offence."}
+      ],
+      "guidance": [
+        {"ref": "IRB Legal Services, Sponsorship Appeals Ch. 2 (Criminal Refusals), Jan 2008", "note": "Cites Drake as the authority that considered the effect of a Washington State Alford plea."}
+      ],
+      "interpretation": ""
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "withheld-adjudication",
+      "names": ["withheld adjudication", "withholding of adjudication", "adjudication withheld"],
+      "is_conviction": "depends",
+      "status": "no-authority",
+      "analysis": "Florida's withholding of adjudication (Fla Stat s. 948.01) lets the court accept a guilty or nolo plea (or a verdict), impose probation, and withhold formal adjudication; on successful completion the defendant is not 'convicted' under Florida law. No reported Federal Court or published IAD decision squarely deciding whether a withheld adjudication is an IRPA conviction was located. (A citation that circulates in commentary for this point, 'Lu v Canada, 2011 FC 1476', does not check out -- the actual decision is a Taiwan investor case.)",
+      "state_variations": [
+        {"state": "Florida", "note": "The principal withholding jurisdiction. Note Florida limits withholding for serious felonies, and a withheld adjudication still counts as a conviction for some Florida purposes (e.g. felon-in-possession, repeat-offender scoring) -- a mixed effect that weakens the analogy to a Canadian discharge.", "is_conviction": "depends"}
+      ],
+      "authorities": [],
+      "guidance": [
+        {"ref": "IRB Legal Services, Sponsorship Appeals Ch. 2 (Criminal Refusals), Jan 2008", "note": "States the general principle that foreign dispositions taking forms unknown to Canadian law must have their effect determined by the decision-maker."}
+      ],
+      "interpretation": "Under the Burgon/Saini framework the analysis turns on whether the state's own law treats the completed disposition as a non-conviction AND whether its aim and effect resemble Canada's discharge regime (Criminal Code s. 730, which requires that guilt be found but no conviction be registered). A completed Florida withholding resembles a Canadian conditional discharge in structure: guilt is established (by plea or verdict) but no adjudication is entered. That supports non-recognition of a conviction where probation was completed. But the resemblance is imperfect (Florida attaches conviction-like consequences to withheld adjudications for several purposes), and an officer could reasonably weigh that against recognition. Critically, guilt was admitted or found, so the act branch (s. 36(1)(c)/(2)(c)) is available regardless -- as Drake shows for pleas -- meaning a withheld adjudication should never be treated as a clean bill for admissibility purposes. If adjudication was ultimately entered (probation violated), it is simply a conviction."
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "deferred-adjudication",
+      "names": ["deferred adjudication", "deferred entry of judgment", "probation before judgment", "deferred judgment"],
+      "is_conviction": "depends",
+      "status": "no-authority",
+      "analysis": "Deferred-adjudication regimes (e.g. Texas CCP art 42A.101; Maryland probation before judgment; various deferred-judgment statutes) take a guilty or nolo plea, defer entry of judgment during probation, and dismiss on completion -- the defendant is not convicted under state law if successful. No reported Federal Court or published IAD decision on a US deferred adjudication was located.",
+      "state_variations": [
+        {"state": "Texas", "note": "Deferred adjudication under CCP art 42A.101: plea taken, no adjudication if community supervision is completed; violation leads to adjudication on the original plea.", "is_conviction": "depends"},
+        {"state": "Maryland", "note": "Probation before judgment (PBJ): judgment stayed after a finding or plea; discharge without judgment on completion.", "is_conviction": "depends"},
+        {"state": "general", "note": "Distinguish true deferred ADJUDICATION (no judgment entered) from a deferred or suspended SENTENCE after judgment -- the latter is a conviction; only execution of the penalty was deferred.", "is_conviction": "depends"}
+      ],
+      "authorities": [],
+      "guidance": [
+        {"ref": "IRB Legal Services, Sponsorship Appeals Ch. 2 (Criminal Refusals), Jan 2008", "note": "General principle: the effect of unfamiliar foreign dispositions must be determined by the decision-maker."}
+      ],
+      "interpretation": "The same reasoning as withheld adjudication: a COMPLETED deferred adjudication under a statute that deems no conviction is structurally the closest US analogue to a Canadian conditional discharge, which supports non-recognition of a conviction under Burgon/Saini. An uncompleted deferral (probation ongoing) is unresolved either way and officers can await the outcome; a violated deferral ends in an ordinary conviction. In every case the plea or finding underlying the deferral supports the act branch (s. 36(1)(c)/(2)(c)) on a balance of probabilities, so completion of the deferral does not by itself restore admissibility."
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "nolo-contendere",
+      "names": ["nolo contendere", "no contest plea", "nolo plea"],
+      "is_conviction": "depends",
+      "status": "no-authority",
+      "analysis": "A nolo contendere plea is a plea that accepts conviction without admitting guilt for collateral civil purposes. What matters for IRPA is the DISPOSITION that follows, not the plea label: a nolo plea followed by an entered judgment is an ordinary conviction under state law, and nothing about the plea creates a Canadian-style non-conviction analogy; a nolo plea followed by withholding or deferral is analyzed as that disposition (see the withheld-adjudication and deferred-adjudication entries). No reported Canadian decision turning on the nolo character of a plea was located.",
+      "state_variations": [],
+      "authorities": [
+        {"cite": "Drake v Canada (FCTD, IMM-4050-98, 11 March 1999)", "court": "Federal Court (Trial Division)", "pin": "para 18", "holding": "By analogy: a plea entered for pragmatic reasons without admitting guilt (an Alford plea) still grounded a committed-the-offence finding on a balance of probabilities."}
+      ],
+      "guidance": [],
+      "interpretation": "Where judgment was entered on a nolo plea, treat it as a conviction: the plea's evidentiary limits in US civil litigation have no bearing on whether the person 'has been convicted' under s. 36. For the act branch, a nolo plea is weaker evidence of the underlying conduct than a guilty plea (nothing was admitted), but Drake shows pragmatic pleas can still support a balance-of-probabilities finding, particularly together with the charging documents and any factual basis recited at the plea."
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "pretrial-diversion",
+      "names": ["pretrial diversion", "pre-trial intervention", "deferred prosecution", "diversion program"],
+      "is_conviction": "no",
+      "status": "no-authority",
+      "analysis": "True pretrial diversion or deferred prosecution -- where prosecution is suspended WITHOUT any plea or finding of guilt and charges are dismissed on completion -- produces no conviction under any US regime, and there is no plausible route to calling it one under IRPA: there is nothing to recognize or refuse to recognize. No reported Canadian decision was located, and none should be needed on the conviction question.",
+      "state_variations": [
+        {"state": "general", "note": "Verify no plea was entered: many programs labelled 'diversion' in fact require a guilty plea held in abeyance -- those are deferred adjudications, analyzed under that entry.", "is_conviction": "depends"}
+      ],
+      "authorities": [],
+      "guidance": [],
+      "interpretation": "Not a conviction. The live question is only the act branch: s. 36(1)(c)/(2)(c) inadmissibility can still be based on the underlying conduct, proved on a balance of probabilities (s. 36(3)(d)), using police reports and the person's own statements. In practice a completed diversion with no admission gives an officer little to work with, but it is not a legal bar."
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "acd-cwof",
+      "names": ["adjournment in contemplation of dismissal", "ACD", "ACOD", "continuance without a finding", "CWOF"],
+      "is_conviction": "depends",
+      "status": "no-authority",
+      "analysis": "New York's ACD (CPL 170.55) adjourns the case and dismisses it in furtherance of justice after a period, with NO plea and no finding of guilt -- on dismissal the arrest and prosecution are deemed a nullity under NY law. Massachusetts' continuance without a finding (CWOF) differs decisively: it requires an admission to sufficient facts before the case is continued and dismissed. No reported Canadian decision on either was located.",
+      "state_variations": [
+        {"state": "New York", "note": "ACD: no plea, no finding; deemed nullity on dismissal.", "is_conviction": "no"},
+        {"state": "Massachusetts", "note": "CWOF: admission to sufficient facts precedes the continuance -- guilt is on the record even though no conviction enters.", "is_conviction": "depends"}
+      ],
+      "authorities": [],
+      "guidance": [],
+      "interpretation": "A completed NY ACD is not a conviction on any analysis -- it is a dismissal without guilt, stronger even than a Canadian discharge (which requires a finding of guilt). A Massachusetts CWOF is not a conviction under state law either, and its structure (admitted facts, no judgment, dismissal on completion) parallels the Canadian conditional discharge, supporting non-recognition under Burgon -- but the admission to sufficient facts squarely supports the act branch (s. 36(1)(c)/(2)(c)), as with any admitted-guilt disposition."
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "set-aside-1203-4",
+      "names": ["set aside", "1203.4 dismissal", "PC 1203.4", "post-conviction dismissal", "judicial set-aside"],
+      "is_conviction": "depends",
+      "status": "no-authority",
+      "analysis": "California Penal Code s. 1203.4 (and analogues, e.g. Arizona's set-aside) allows a court, after probation is completed, to permit withdrawal of the plea and dismiss the accusation. The relief is expressly limited under state law: the conviction may still be pleaded and proved in later prosecutions, used for licensing and other purposes, and the statute's own text reserves these effects. No reported Canadian decision on a s. 1203.4 dismissal was located.",
+      "state_variations": [
+        {"state": "California", "note": "PC 1203.4: plea withdrawn and case dismissed after probation, but the conviction survives for many state and federal purposes.", "is_conviction": "depends"},
+        {"state": "Arizona", "note": "Set-aside (ARS 13-905): judgment of guilt set aside, but with enumerated carve-outs preserving the conviction's effect.", "is_conviction": "depends"}
+      ],
+      "authorities": [],
+      "guidance": [],
+      "interpretation": "Under the Saini second element (aim, content and EFFECT of the foreign law), a s. 1203.4 dismissal is a weak candidate for recognition: unlike a Canadian record suspension, it does not remove the conviction's legal effect -- state law preserves it for numerous purposes, and it was relief granted as a reward for completing probation rather than a determination that no conviction should exist. The better view is that the person 'has been convicted' for s. 36 purposes notwithstanding the dismissal, though the completed probation and dismissal are relevant to rehabilitation relief (s. 36(3)(c)) and to discretion. A set-aside granted for legal error stands differently (compare Drake: vacatur ab initio removed the conviction basis)."
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "juvenile-adjudication",
+      "names": ["juvenile adjudication", "juvenile delinquency", "youthful offender adjudication", "juvenile record"],
+      "is_conviction": "depends",
+      "status": "guidance-only",
+      "analysis": "IRPA s. 36(3)(e) excludes findings under Canada's youth-justice statutes (Young Offenders Act; youth sentences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act) from inadmissibility. Its application to FOREIGN youth dispositions is, in the IRB's own words, 'not entirely clear'. The operational approach treats a foreign juvenile adjudication like a Canadian youth finding where the foreign system dealt with the person as a youth in a separate youth regime; a minor tried and convicted AS AN ADULT (or given an adult sentence) is treated as convicted. US delinquency adjudications are civil-adjacent, sealed, and expressly 'not convictions' under most state statutes, which supports the same result by the Burgon route independent of s. 36(3)(e).",
+      "state_variations": [
+        {"state": "general", "note": "The decisive questions: was the person proceeded against in juvenile court, and does state law deem the adjudication a non-conviction? A juvenile transferred/waived into adult court and convicted there is convicted.", "is_conviction": "depends"}
+      ],
+      "authorities": [],
+      "guidance": [
+        {"ref": "IRPA s. 36(3)(e)", "note": "Excludes Canadian youth-justice findings; foreign application unsettled."},
+        {"ref": "IRB Legal Services, Sponsorship Appeals Ch. 2 (Criminal Refusals), Jan 2008", "note": "Notes the foreign application of s. 36(3)(e) is 'not entirely clear'; records CIC's public position that a YCJA youth is not inadmissible unless given an adult sentence, and that transfer to adult court may ground inadmissibility."}
+      ],
+      "interpretation": "For a US juvenile delinquency adjudication in juvenile court: not a conviction, both by analogy to s. 36(3)(e)'s policy and because state law deems it a non-conviction (Burgon). For a minor convicted in adult criminal court: a conviction. The act branch technically remains for adjudicated conduct, but using it to circumvent the youth-justice exclusion would sit uneasily with s. 36(3)(e)'s purpose; flag rather than assert."
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "suspended-imposition",
+      "names": ["suspended imposition of sentence", "SIS", "suspended sentence", "suspended execution of sentence"],
+      "is_conviction": "depends",
+      "status": "no-authority",
+      "analysis": "Two very different dispositions share the 'suspended sentence' label. Suspended IMPOSITION of sentence (e.g. Missouri): guilt is found but no sentence is imposed and, on successful probation, no conviction enters the record under state law. Suspended EXECUTION of sentence: judgment and sentence are both entered, and only the serving of the sentence is suspended -- unambiguously a conviction. No reported Canadian decision on a US SIS was located.",
+      "state_variations": [
+        {"state": "Missouri", "note": "SIS: completed probation leaves no conviction under state law; a closed record is retained.", "is_conviction": "depends"},
+        {"state": "general", "note": "Read the judgment: if a sentence was imposed and merely stayed, it is a conviction everywhere.", "is_conviction": "depends"}
+      ],
+      "authorities": [],
+      "guidance": [],
+      "interpretation": "A completed Missouri-style SIS parallels the Canadian conditional discharge closely (guilt found, no conviction registered, probation conditions) and is a strong candidate for non-recognition as a conviction under Burgon/Saini. Suspended execution is a conviction, full stop -- and note that for s. 36(1)(a)'s six-month branch Canadian courts treat the imposed (even if suspended) term as the term of imprisonment. The act branch remains available for SIS cases since guilt was found."
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "dui-administrative",
+      "names": ["administrative license suspension", "DUI administrative finding", "civil infraction", "municipal ordinance violation", "administrative per se"],
+      "is_conviction": "no",
+      "status": "no-authority",
+      "analysis": "US administrative per-se license suspensions (a DMV process triggered by BAC or refusal), civil infractions, and many municipal ordinance violations are not criminal proceedings and produce no criminal conviction. They cannot satisfy 'has been convicted' in s. 36. The criminal DUI charge that often runs in parallel is a separate matter: a criminal DUI conviction is a conviction (and impaired driving is a serious hybrid offence in Canada -- punishable by up to 10 years -- so a single DUI conviction typically grounds serious criminality under s. 36(1)(b) via s. 36(3)(a)). No Canadian authority was located treating an administrative finding alone as a conviction, and none is plausible.",
+      "state_variations": [
+        {"state": "general", "note": "Check whether the state charges DUI criminally, as a civil infraction (rare), or both; and whether a municipal-ordinance conviction is criminal under state law -- some states prosecute ordinance violations quasi-criminally.", "is_conviction": "depends"}
+      ],
+      "authorities": [],
+      "guidance": [],
+      "interpretation": "The administrative finding is not a conviction, but it is EVIDENCE: a per-se suspension based on a tested BAC can support an act-branch finding (s. 36(1)(c)/(2)(c)) that the person committed what would be impaired driving/driving over the limit in Canada, on a balance of probabilities. Officers should analyze the conduct, not just the disposition label."
+    }
+  ]
+}

data/processed/commentary.json

@@ -0,0 +1,254 @@
+[
+ {
+  "id": "commentary-method-conviction-framework",
+  "doc_type": "commentary",
+  "act_code": "US-DISP",
+  "act_short": "US Dispositions Helper",
+  "act_name": "US criminal dispositions and the IRPA 'conviction' concept (curated CanLex commentary)",
+  "section": "conviction-framework",
+  "marginal_note": "When is a foreign disposition a 'conviction' for IRPA s. 36?",
+  "part": "Methodology",
+  "division": "",
+  "heading": "When is a foreign disposition a 'conviction' for IRPA s. 36?",
+  "text": "CURATED ANALYSIS -- commentary compiled for CanLex, not a source of law. Verify against the cited authorities before relying on it.\n\nIRPA s. 36(1)(b) and 36(2)(b) require a CONVICTION outside Canada (for an offence that, if committed in Canada, would meet the seriousness threshold). Whether a foreign disposition is a conviction is a question of Canadian immigration law, informed by the foreign law's own effect.\n\nGoverning principles, each from verified authority:\n\n1. A disposition the foreign law itself deems a non-conviction may be respected in Canada where the legal systems are similar. Canada (MEI) v Burgon, [1991] 3 FC 44 (CA): a UK probation order that UK law deemed not a conviction was held not a conviction for Canadian immigration purposes, because the UK and Canadian systems are so similar (Canada's analogue being the conditional/absolute discharge under Criminal Code s. 730, which by s. 730(3) deems the offender 'not to have been convicted').\n\n2. 'Convicted' means a conviction that has not been expunged (Burgon). A foreign expungement is recognized on the same system-similarity logic: Barnett v Canada (1996), 33 Imm LR (2d) 1 (FCTD) recognized a UK Rehabilitation of Offenders Act expungement.\n\n3. For foreign discharges and pardons, Canada (MCI) v Saini, 2001 FCA 311 at para 24 requires three elements: (1) the foreign legal system as a whole must be similar to that of Canada; (2) the aim, content and effect of the specific foreign law must be similar to Canadian law; and (3) there must be no valid reason not to recognize the effect of the foreign law. Saini adds that absent evidence of the motivating considerations behind a foreign pardon, the decision-maker is not bound by it, and that the sheer seriousness of the crime (there, hijacking) can itself be a valid reason to withhold recognition.\n\n4. THE ACT BRANCH ALWAYS REMAINS: even where a disposition is NOT a conviction, IRPA s. 36(1)(c) and 36(2)(c) make a person inadmissible for COMMITTING an act abroad that is an offence there and would be an offence in Canada, proved on a balance of probabilities (s. 36(3)(d)). Drake v Canada (FCTD, IMM-4050-98, 11 March 1999): an Alford plea (a guilty plea maintaining factual innocence) properly grounded a committed-the-offence finding on a balance of probabilities. No non-conviction disposition answers the act branch.\n\n5. Deeming rules (s. 36(3)): hybrid offences are deemed indictable even if prosecuted summarily (a); a Canadian record suspension or a final acquittal removes the conviction basis (b); rehabilitation -- individual or deemed (IRPR s. 18.1) -- cures foreign convictions/acts after the prescribed period (c); Canadian youth-justice findings are excluded (e).\n\n6. Timing: a person convicted at trial is convicted notwithstanding an unexhausted appeal (Kalicharan, [1976] 2 FC 123 (TD)), but appellate substitution of a discharge means the conviction is deemed never to have been passed (Kalicharan; Lew, [1974] 2 FC 700 (CA)).\n\nIRCC/IRB guidance: IRB Legal Services, Sponsorship Appeals Ch. 2 'Criminal Refusals' (Jan 2008) synthesizes this jurisprudence; IRCC's ENF 2 manual covers the same ground operationally (cited here by name only).",
+  "history": "",
+  "last_amended": "",
+  "current_to": "2026-07-10",
+  "citation": "US Dispositions Helper — When is a foreign disposition a 'conviction' for IRPA s. 36?",
+  "source_url": ""
+ },
+ {
+  "id": "commentary-method-equivalency-preview",
+  "doc_type": "commentary",
+  "act_code": "US-DISP",
+  "act_short": "US Dispositions Helper",
+  "act_name": "US criminal dispositions and the IRPA 'conviction' concept (curated CanLex commentary)",
+  "section": "equivalency-preview",
+  "marginal_note": "Step 2 -- offence equivalency (not covered by this helper)",
+  "part": "Methodology",
+  "division": "",
+  "heading": "Step 2 -- offence equivalency (not covered by this helper)",
+  "text": "CURATED ANALYSIS -- commentary compiled for CanLex, not a source of law. Verify against the cited authorities before relying on it.\n\nOnce a conviction (or committed act) is established, s. 36(1)(b)/(c) and 36(2)(b)/(c) require EQUIVALENCY: the foreign offence must correspond to a Canadian federal offence of the required seriousness, assessed against Canadian law as it reads at the time of the admissibility decision. Equivalency is fact-specific per offence and is not tabulated by this helper -- retrieve the governing case law (Hill v Canada (MEI) and its line) with canlex_search_legislation, and remember the s. 36(3)(a) rule that hybrid offences count as indictable.",
+  "history": "",
+  "last_amended": "",
+  "current_to": "2026-07-10",
+  "citation": "US Dispositions Helper — Step 2 -- offence equivalency (not covered by this helper)",
+  "source_url": ""
+ },
+ {
+  "id": "commentary-disp-state-pardon",
+  "doc_type": "commentary",
+  "act_code": "US-DISP",
+  "act_short": "US Dispositions Helper",
+  "act_name": "US criminal dispositions and the IRPA 'conviction' concept (curated CanLex commentary)",
+  "section": "state-pardon",
+  "marginal_note": "state pardon",
+  "part": "US dispositions",
+  "division": "",
+  "heading": "Is a US state pardon a conviction for IRPA s. 36? (depends)",
+  "text": "CURATED ANALYSIS -- commentary compiled for CanLex, not a source of law. Verify against the cited authorities before relying on it.\n\nDisposition: state pardon; governor's pardon; pardon board pardon; executive clemency\nIs it a conviction for IRPA s. 36 purposes: DEPENDS\nAuthority status: Judicially considered (persuasive authority)\n\nThe recognition test for foreign pardons is settled: Saini's three elements (similar legal system; similar aim, content and effect of the specific law; no valid reason to refuse recognition). US state legal systems will generally satisfy the first element, so the analysis turns on what the particular state's pardon actually does and why it was granted. A full unconditional pardon that under state law blots out the conviction, granted on rehabilitation or innocence grounds, is a strong candidate for recognition (compare a Canadian record suspension, IRPA s. 36(3)(b)). A pardon that merely restores civil rights (a common limited form) does not resemble a Canadian record suspension in effect and is unlikely to be recognized. Saini also holds the decision-maker is not bound by a pardon absent evidence of its motivating considerations, and that offence seriousness can alone justify non-recognition. No reported decision applying Saini to a specific US state pardon was located; the framework itself is binding FCA authority.\n\nState variations:\n- general (conviction: depends): Pardon effect varies sharply by state: some (e.g. full pardons in some states) expunge or seal; many only restore civil rights and expressly leave the conviction of record. Obtain the state statute or pardon instrument and match its effect against a Canadian record suspension.\n\nAuthorities:\n- Canada (MCI) v Saini, 2001 FCA 311 (Federal Court of Appeal, para 24): Three-part test for recognizing a foreign discharge or pardon; decision-maker not bound absent the pardon's motivating considerations; seriousness of the offence can be a valid reason to refuse recognition.\n\nIRCC guidance (cited by reference; not reproduced here):\n- IRB Legal Services, Sponsorship Appeals Ch. 2 (Criminal Refusals), Jan 2008: Synthesizes Saini and the foreign-pardon jurisprudence; notes an acquittal based solely on a victim's pardon is not similar to Canadian law and is not recognized.",
+  "history": "",
+  "last_amended": "",
+  "current_to": "2026-07-10",
+  "citation": "US Dispositions Helper — state pardon",
+  "source_url": ""
+ },
+ {
+  "id": "commentary-disp-expungement",
+  "doc_type": "commentary",
+  "act_code": "US-DISP",
+  "act_short": "US Dispositions Helper",
+  "act_name": "US criminal dispositions and the IRPA 'conviction' concept (curated CanLex commentary)",
+  "section": "expungement",
+  "marginal_note": "expungement",
+  "part": "US dispositions",
+  "division": "",
+  "heading": "Is a US expungement a conviction for IRPA s. 36? (depends)",
+  "text": "CURATED ANALYSIS -- commentary compiled for CanLex, not a source of law. Verify against the cited authorities before relying on it.\n\nDisposition: expungement; expunged conviction; record sealing; sealed record; vacated conviction\nIs it a conviction for IRPA s. 36 purposes: DEPENDS\nAuthority status: Judicially considered (persuasive authority)\n\n'Convicted' in s. 36 means a conviction that has not been expunged (Burgon), and a foreign expungement under a rehabilitation-type statute can be recognized where the legal systems and the specific law's aim and effect are similar to Canada's (Barnett, recognizing a UK Rehabilitation of Offenders Act expungement; the Saini three-part test now governs). Two distinctions matter for US records. First, expungement-for-legal-error is stronger than expungement-as-relief: where a court vacates a conviction as void (as in Drake, where the verdict was vacated ab initio), the conviction basis is gone -- though any replacement plea or the underlying conduct still counts. Second, most US 'expungement' and sealing statutes limit access to the record without destroying the conviction's legal existence (the record can often be revived in later proceedings) -- an effect closer to sealing than to a Canadian record suspension, which weakens the second Saini element. The disposition documents and the state statute's actual effect are decisive.\n\nState variations:\n- general (conviction: depends): Terminology is not reliable across states: 'expungement' may mean destruction, sealing, set-aside, or dismissal. Assess the statute's effect, not its label.\n\nAuthorities:\n- Canada (MEI) v Burgon, [1991] 3 FC 44 (CA) (Federal Court of Appeal): 'Convicted' means a conviction that has not been expunged; a UK deemed-non-conviction disposition was respected because the legal systems are similar.\n- Barnett v Canada (1996), 33 Imm LR (2d) 1 (FCTD) (Federal Court (Trial Division)): UK Rehabilitation of Offenders Act expungement recognized on the Burgon rationale: the person could not be said to have been convicted.\n- Canada (MCI) v Saini, 2001 FCA 311 (Federal Court of Appeal, para 24): The three-part recognition test that now governs foreign discharges and pardons.\n- Drake v Canada (FCTD, IMM-4050-98, 11 March 1999) (Federal Court (Trial Division)): A US jury verdict vacated ab initio removed the conviction basis for the removal order -- but the subsequent plea to the same conduct still grounded inadmissibility.\n\nIRCC guidance (cited by reference; not reproduced here):\n- IRB Legal Services, Sponsorship Appeals Ch. 2 (Criminal Refusals), Jan 2008: States the expungement principle and collects the Burgon/Barnett line.",
+  "history": "",
+  "last_amended": "",
+  "current_to": "2026-07-10",
+  "citation": "US Dispositions Helper — expungement",
+  "source_url": ""
+ },
+ {
+  "id": "commentary-disp-alford-plea",
+  "doc_type": "commentary",
+  "act_code": "US-DISP",
+  "act_short": "US Dispositions Helper",
+  "act_name": "US criminal dispositions and the IRPA 'conviction' concept (curated CanLex commentary)",
+  "section": "alford-plea",
+  "marginal_note": "Alford plea",
+  "part": "US dispositions",
+  "division": "",
+  "heading": "Is a US Alford plea a conviction for IRPA s. 36? (yes)",
+  "text": "CURATED ANALYSIS -- commentary compiled for CanLex, not a source of law. Verify against the cited authorities before relying on it.\n\nDisposition: Alford plea; Alford guilty plea; best-interests plea\nIs it a conviction for IRPA s. 36 purposes: YES\nAuthority status: Judicially considered (persuasive authority)\n\nAn Alford plea (North Carolina v Alford: a guilty plea entered while maintaining factual innocence) is a guilty plea, and the resulting judgment is an ordinary conviction under US law -- nothing in the disposition resembles a Canadian non-conviction regime, so there is no Burgon/Saini basis to treat it otherwise. Drake v Canada is direct Federal Court authority on the related act branch: the Court held it was no error to rely on an Alford plea to find, on a balance of probabilities, that the person had committed the offence abroad, noting the plea was entered because the risk of conviction on the evidence was high. So even where the plea's conviction status could be argued, the plea itself supports a committed-the-act finding under s. 36(1)(c)/(2)(c).\n\nAuthorities:\n- Drake v Canada (FCTD, IMM-4050-98, 11 March 1999) (Federal Court (Trial Division), para 18): No error in relying on an Alford plea to a Washington State charge to find, on a balance of probabilities, that the applicant had committed the offence.\n\nIRCC guidance (cited by reference; not reproduced here):\n- IRB Legal Services, Sponsorship Appeals Ch. 2 (Criminal Refusals), Jan 2008: Cites Drake as the authority that considered the effect of a Washington State Alford plea.",
+  "history": "",
+  "last_amended": "",
+  "current_to": "2026-07-10",
+  "citation": "US Dispositions Helper — Alford plea",
+  "source_url": ""
+ },
+ {
+  "id": "commentary-disp-withheld-adjudication",
+  "doc_type": "commentary",
+  "act_code": "US-DISP",
+  "act_short": "US Dispositions Helper",
+  "act_name": "US criminal dispositions and the IRPA 'conviction' concept (curated CanLex commentary)",
+  "section": "withheld-adjudication",
+  "marginal_note": "withheld adjudication",
+  "part": "US dispositions",
+  "division": "",
+  "heading": "Is a US withheld adjudication a conviction for IRPA s. 36? (depends)",
+  "text": "CURATED ANALYSIS -- commentary compiled for CanLex, not a source of law. Verify against the cited authorities before relying on it.\n\nDisposition: withheld adjudication; withholding of adjudication; adjudication withheld\nIs it a conviction for IRPA s. 36 purposes: DEPENDS\nAuthority status: NO AUTHORITY LOCATED -- reasoned interpretation only\n\nFlorida's withholding of adjudication (Fla Stat s. 948.01) lets the court accept a guilty or nolo plea (or a verdict), impose probation, and withhold formal adjudication; on successful completion the defendant is not 'convicted' under Florida law. No reported Federal Court or published IAD decision squarely deciding whether a withheld adjudication is an IRPA conviction was located. (A citation that circulates in commentary for this point, 'Lu v Canada, 2011 FC 1476', does not check out -- the actual decision is a Taiwan investor case.)\n\nState variations:\n- Florida (conviction: depends): The principal withholding jurisdiction. Note Florida limits withholding for serious felonies, and a withheld adjudication still counts as a conviction for some Florida purposes (e.g. felon-in-possession, repeat-offender scoring) -- a mixed effect that weakens the analogy to a Canadian discharge.\n\nIRCC guidance (cited by reference; not reproduced here):\n- IRB Legal Services, Sponsorship Appeals Ch. 2 (Criminal Refusals), Jan 2008: States the general principle that foreign dispositions taking forms unknown to Canadian law must have their effect determined by the decision-maker.\n\nINTERPRETATION (no direct authority -- this is CanLex's reasoned view from the governing principles; treat it as a starting point, not an answer): Under the Burgon/Saini framework the analysis turns on whether the state's own law treats the completed disposition as a non-conviction AND whether its aim and effect resemble Canada's discharge regime (Criminal Code s. 730, which requires that guilt be found but no conviction be registered). A completed Florida withholding resembles a Canadian conditional discharge in structure: guilt is established (by plea or verdict) but no adjudication is entered. That supports non-recognition of a conviction where probation was completed. But the resemblance is imperfect (Florida attaches conviction-like consequences to withheld adjudications for several purposes), and an officer could reasonably weigh that against recognition. Critically, guilt was admitted or found, so the act branch (s. 36(1)(c)/(2)(c)) is available regardless -- as Drake shows for pleas -- meaning a withheld adjudication should never be treated as a clean bill for admissibility purposes. If adjudication was ultimately entered (probation violated), it is simply a conviction.",
+  "history": "",
+  "last_amended": "",
+  "current_to": "2026-07-10",
+  "citation": "US Dispositions Helper — withheld adjudication",
+  "source_url": ""
+ },
+ {
+  "id": "commentary-disp-deferred-adjudication",
+  "doc_type": "commentary",
+  "act_code": "US-DISP",
+  "act_short": "US Dispositions Helper",
+  "act_name": "US criminal dispositions and the IRPA 'conviction' concept (curated CanLex commentary)",
+  "section": "deferred-adjudication",
+  "marginal_note": "deferred adjudication",
+  "part": "US dispositions",
+  "division": "",
+  "heading": "Is a US deferred adjudication a conviction for IRPA s. 36? (depends)",
+  "text": "CURATED ANALYSIS -- commentary compiled for CanLex, not a source of law. Verify against the cited authorities before relying on it.\n\nDisposition: deferred adjudication; deferred entry of judgment; probation before judgment; deferred judgment\nIs it a conviction for IRPA s. 36 purposes: DEPENDS\nAuthority status: NO AUTHORITY LOCATED -- reasoned interpretation only\n\nDeferred-adjudication regimes (e.g. Texas CCP art 42A.101; Maryland probation before judgment; various deferred-judgment statutes) take a guilty or nolo plea, defer entry of judgment during probation, and dismiss on completion -- the defendant is not convicted under state law if successful. No reported Federal Court or published IAD decision on a US deferred adjudication was located.\n\nState variations:\n- Texas (conviction: depends): Deferred adjudication under CCP art 42A.101: plea taken, no adjudication if community supervision is completed; violation leads to adjudication on the original plea.\n- Maryland (conviction: depends): Probation before judgment (PBJ): judgment stayed after a finding or plea; discharge without judgment on completion.\n- general (conviction: depends): Distinguish true deferred ADJUDICATION (no judgment entered) from a deferred or suspended SENTENCE after judgment -- the latter is a conviction; only execution of the penalty was deferred.\n\nIRCC guidance (cited by reference; not reproduced here):\n- IRB Legal Services, Sponsorship Appeals Ch. 2 (Criminal Refusals), Jan 2008: General principle: the effect of unfamiliar foreign dispositions must be determined by the decision-maker.\n\nINTERPRETATION (no direct authority -- this is CanLex's reasoned view from the governing principles; treat it as a starting point, not an answer): The same reasoning as withheld adjudication: a COMPLETED deferred adjudication under a statute that deems no conviction is structurally the closest US analogue to a Canadian conditional discharge, which supports non-recognition of a conviction under Burgon/Saini. An uncompleted deferral (probation ongoing) is unresolved either way and officers can await the outcome; a violated deferral ends in an ordinary conviction. In every case the plea or finding underlying the deferral supports the act branch (s. 36(1)(c)/(2)(c)) on a balance of probabilities, so completion of the deferral does not by itself restore admissibility.",
+  "history": "",
+  "last_amended": "",
+  "current_to": "2026-07-10",
+  "citation": "US Dispositions Helper — deferred adjudication",
+  "source_url": ""
+ },
+ {
+  "id": "commentary-disp-nolo-contendere",
+  "doc_type": "commentary",
+  "act_code": "US-DISP",
+  "act_short": "US Dispositions Helper",
+  "act_name": "US criminal dispositions and the IRPA 'conviction' concept (curated CanLex commentary)",
+  "section": "nolo-contendere",
+  "marginal_note": "nolo contendere",
+  "part": "US dispositions",
+  "division": "",
+  "heading": "Is a US nolo contendere a conviction for IRPA s. 36? (depends)",
+  "text": "CURATED ANALYSIS -- commentary compiled for CanLex, not a source of law. Verify against the cited authorities before relying on it.\n\nDisposition: nolo contendere; no contest plea; nolo plea\nIs it a conviction for IRPA s. 36 purposes: DEPENDS\nAuthority status: NO AUTHORITY LOCATED -- reasoned interpretation only\n\nA nolo contendere plea is a plea that accepts conviction without admitting guilt for collateral civil purposes. What matters for IRPA is the DISPOSITION that follows, not the plea label: a nolo plea followed by an entered judgment is an ordinary conviction under state law, and nothing about the plea creates a Canadian-style non-conviction analogy; a nolo plea followed by withholding or deferral is analyzed as that disposition (see the withheld-adjudication and deferred-adjudication entries). No reported Canadian decision turning on the nolo character of a plea was located.\n\nAuthorities:\n- Drake v Canada (FCTD, IMM-4050-98, 11 March 1999) (Federal Court (Trial Division), para 18): By analogy: a plea entered for pragmatic reasons without admitting guilt (an Alford plea) still grounded a committed-the-offence finding on a balance of probabilities.\n\nINTERPRETATION (no direct authority -- this is CanLex's reasoned view from the governing principles; treat it as a starting point, not an answer): Where judgment was entered on a nolo plea, treat it as a conviction: the plea's evidentiary limits in US civil litigation have no bearing on whether the person 'has been convicted' under s. 36. For the act branch, a nolo plea is weaker evidence of the underlying conduct than a guilty plea (nothing was admitted), but Drake shows pragmatic pleas can still support a balance-of-probabilities finding, particularly together with the charging documents and any factual basis recited at the plea.",
+  "history": "",
+  "last_amended": "",
+  "current_to": "2026-07-10",
+  "citation": "US Dispositions Helper — nolo contendere",
+  "source_url": ""
+ },
+ {
+  "id": "commentary-disp-pretrial-diversion",
+  "doc_type": "commentary",
+  "act_code": "US-DISP",
+  "act_short": "US Dispositions Helper",
+  "act_name": "US criminal dispositions and the IRPA 'conviction' concept (curated CanLex commentary)",
+  "section": "pretrial-diversion",
+  "marginal_note": "pretrial diversion",
+  "part": "US dispositions",
+  "division": "",
+  "heading": "Is a US pretrial diversion a conviction for IRPA s. 36? (no)",
+  "text": "CURATED ANALYSIS -- commentary compiled for CanLex, not a source of law. Verify against the cited authorities before relying on it.\n\nDisposition: pretrial diversion; pre-trial intervention; deferred prosecution; diversion program\nIs it a conviction for IRPA s. 36 purposes: NO\nAuthority status: NO AUTHORITY LOCATED -- reasoned interpretation only\n\nTrue pretrial diversion or deferred prosecution -- where prosecution is suspended WITHOUT any plea or finding of guilt and charges are dismissed on completion -- produces no conviction under any US regime, and there is no plausible route to calling it one under IRPA: there is nothing to recognize or refuse to recognize. No reported Canadian decision was located, and none should be needed on the conviction question.\n\nState variations:\n- general (conviction: depends): Verify no plea was entered: many programs labelled 'diversion' in fact require a guilty plea held in abeyance -- those are deferred adjudications, analyzed under that entry.\n\nINTERPRETATION (no direct authority -- this is CanLex's reasoned view from the governing principles; treat it as a starting point, not an answer): Not a conviction. The live question is only the act branch: s. 36(1)(c)/(2)(c) inadmissibility can still be based on the underlying conduct, proved on a balance of probabilities (s. 36(3)(d)), using police reports and the person's own statements. In practice a completed diversion with no admission gives an officer little to work with, but it is not a legal bar.",
+  "history": "",
+  "last_amended": "",
+  "current_to": "2026-07-10",
+  "citation": "US Dispositions Helper — pretrial diversion",
+  "source_url": ""
+ },
+ {
+  "id": "commentary-disp-acd-cwof",
+  "doc_type": "commentary",
+  "act_code": "US-DISP",
+  "act_short": "US Dispositions Helper",
+  "act_name": "US criminal dispositions and the IRPA 'conviction' concept (curated CanLex commentary)",
+  "section": "acd-cwof",
+  "marginal_note": "adjournment in contemplation of dismissal",
+  "part": "US dispositions",
+  "division": "",
+  "heading": "Is a US adjournment in contemplation of dismissal a conviction for IRPA s. 36? (depends)",
+  "text": "CURATED ANALYSIS -- commentary compiled for CanLex, not a source of law. Verify against the cited authorities before relying on it.\n\nDisposition: adjournment in contemplation of dismissal; ACD; ACOD; continuance without a finding; CWOF\nIs it a conviction for IRPA s. 36 purposes: DEPENDS\nAuthority status: NO AUTHORITY LOCATED -- reasoned interpretation only\n\nNew York's ACD (CPL 170.55) adjourns the case and dismisses it in furtherance of justice after a period, with NO plea and no finding of guilt -- on dismissal the arrest and prosecution are deemed a nullity under NY law. Massachusetts' continuance without a finding (CWOF) differs decisively: it requires an admission to sufficient facts before the case is continued and dismissed. No reported Canadian decision on either was located.\n\nState variations:\n- New York (conviction: no): ACD: no plea, no finding; deemed nullity on dismissal.\n- Massachusetts (conviction: depends): CWOF: admission to sufficient facts precedes the continuance -- guilt is on the record even though no conviction enters.\n\nINTERPRETATION (no direct authority -- this is CanLex's reasoned view from the governing principles; treat it as a starting point, not an answer): A completed NY ACD is not a conviction on any analysis -- it is a dismissal without guilt, stronger even than a Canadian discharge (which requires a finding of guilt). A Massachusetts CWOF is not a conviction under state law either, and its structure (admitted facts, no judgment, dismissal on completion) parallels the Canadian conditional discharge, supporting non-recognition under Burgon -- but the admission to sufficient facts squarely supports the act branch (s. 36(1)(c)/(2)(c)), as with any admitted-guilt disposition.",
+  "history": "",
+  "last_amended": "",
+  "current_to": "2026-07-10",
+  "citation": "US Dispositions Helper — adjournment in contemplation of dismissal",
+  "source_url": ""
+ },
+ {
+  "id": "commentary-disp-set-aside-1203-4",
+  "doc_type": "commentary",
+  "act_code": "US-DISP",
+  "act_short": "US Dispositions Helper",
+  "act_name": "US criminal dispositions and the IRPA 'conviction' concept (curated CanLex commentary)",
+  "section": "set-aside-1203-4",
+  "marginal_note": "set aside",
+  "part": "US dispositions",
+  "division": "",
+  "heading": "Is a US set aside a conviction for IRPA s. 36? (depends)",
+  "text": "CURATED ANALYSIS -- commentary compiled for CanLex, not a source of law. Verify against the cited authorities before relying on it.\n\nDisposition: set aside; 1203.4 dismissal; PC 1203.4; post-conviction dismissal; judicial set-aside\nIs it a conviction for IRPA s. 36 purposes: DEPENDS\nAuthority status: NO AUTHORITY LOCATED -- reasoned interpretation only\n\nCalifornia Penal Code s. 1203.4 (and analogues, e.g. Arizona's set-aside) allows a court, after probation is completed, to permit withdrawal of the plea and dismiss the accusation. The relief is expressly limited under state law: the conviction may still be pleaded and proved in later prosecutions, used for licensing and other purposes, and the statute's own text reserves these effects. No reported Canadian decision on a s. 1203.4 dismissal was located.\n\nState variations:\n- California (conviction: depends): PC 1203.4: plea withdrawn and case dismissed after probation, but the conviction survives for many state and federal purposes.\n- Arizona (conviction: depends): Set-aside (ARS 13-905): judgment of guilt set aside, but with enumerated carve-outs preserving the conviction's effect.\n\nINTERPRETATION (no direct authority -- this is CanLex's reasoned view from the governing principles; treat it as a starting point, not an answer): Under the Saini second element (aim, content and EFFECT of the foreign law), a s. 1203.4 dismissal is a weak candidate for recognition: unlike a Canadian record suspension, it does not remove the conviction's legal effect -- state law preserves it for numerous purposes, and it was relief granted as a reward for completing probation rather than a determination that no conviction should exist. The better view is that the person 'has been convicted' for s. 36 purposes notwithstanding the dismissal, though the completed probation and dismissal are relevant to rehabilitation relief (s. 36(3)(c)) and to discretion. A set-aside granted for legal error stands differently (compare Drake: vacatur ab initio removed the conviction basis).",
+  "history": "",
+  "last_amended": "",
+  "current_to": "2026-07-10",
+  "citation": "US Dispositions Helper — set aside",
+  "source_url": ""
+ },
+ {
+  "id": "commentary-disp-juvenile-adjudication",
+  "doc_type": "commentary",
+  "act_code": "US-DISP",
+  "act_short": "US Dispositions Helper",
+  "act_name": "US criminal dispositions and the IRPA 'conviction' concept (curated CanLex commentary)",
+  "section": "juvenile-adjudication",
+  "marginal_note": "juvenile adjudication",
+  "part": "US dispositions",
+  "division": "",
+  "heading": "Is a US juvenile adjudication a conviction for IRPA s. 36? (depends)",
+  "text": "CURATED ANALYSIS -- commentary compiled for CanLex, not a source of law. Verify against the cited authorities before relying on it.\n\nDisposition: juvenile adjudication; juvenile delinquency; youthful offender adjudication; juvenile record\nIs it a conviction for IRPA s. 36 purposes: DEPENDS\nAuthority status: IRCC guidance only -- no judicial authority located\n\nIRPA s. 36(3)(e) excludes findings under Canada's youth-justice statutes (Young Offenders Act; youth sentences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act) from inadmissibility. Its application to FOREIGN youth dispositions is, in the IRB's own words, 'not entirely clear'. The operational approach treats a foreign juvenile adjudication like a Canadian youth finding where the foreign system dealt with the person as a youth in a separate youth regime; a minor tried and convicted AS AN ADULT (or given an adult sentence) is treated as convicted. US delinquency adjudications are civil-adjacent, sealed, and expressly 'not convictions' under most state statutes, which supports the same result by the Burgon route independent of s. 36(3)(e).\n\nState variations:\n- general (conviction: depends): The decisive questions: was the person proceeded against in juvenile court, and does state law deem the adjudication a non-conviction? A juvenile transferred/waived into adult court and convicted there is convicted.\n\nIRCC guidance (cited by reference; not reproduced here):\n- IRPA s. 36(3)(e): Excludes Canadian youth-justice findings; foreign application unsettled.\n- IRB Legal Services, Sponsorship Appeals Ch. 2 (Criminal Refusals), Jan 2008: Notes the foreign application of s. 36(3)(e) is 'not entirely clear'; records CIC's public position that a YCJA youth is not inadmissible unless given an adult sentence, and that transfer to adult court may ground inadmissibility.\n\nINTERPRETATION (no direct authority -- this is CanLex's reasoned view from the governing principles; treat it as a starting point, not an answer): For a US juvenile delinquency adjudication in juvenile court: not a conviction, both by analogy to s. 36(3)(e)'s policy and because state law deems it a non-conviction (Burgon). For a minor convicted in adult criminal court: a conviction. The act branch technically remains for adjudicated conduct, but using it to circumvent the youth-justice exclusion would sit uneasily with s. 36(3)(e)'s purpose; flag rather than assert.",
+  "history": "",
+  "last_amended": "",
+  "current_to": "2026-07-10",
+  "citation": "US Dispositions Helper — juvenile adjudication",
+  "source_url": ""
+ },
+ {
+  "id": "commentary-disp-suspended-imposition",
+  "doc_type": "commentary",
+  "act_code": "US-DISP",
+  "act_short": "US Dispositions Helper",
+  "act_name": "US criminal dispositions and the IRPA 'conviction' concept (curated CanLex commentary)",
+  "section": "suspended-imposition",
+  "marginal_note": "suspended imposition of sentence",
+  "part": "US dispositions",
+  "division": "",
+  "heading": "Is a US suspended imposition of sentence a conviction for IRPA s. 36? (depends)",
+  "text": "CURATED ANALYSIS -- commentary compiled for CanLex, not a source of law. Verify against the cited authorities before relying on it.\n\nDisposition: suspended imposition of sentence; SIS; suspended sentence; suspended execution of sentence\nIs it a conviction for IRPA s. 36 purposes: DEPENDS\nAuthority status: NO AUTHORITY LOCATED -- reasoned interpretation only\n\nTwo very different dispositions share the 'suspended sentence' label. Suspended IMPOSITION of sentence (e.g. Missouri): guilt is found but no sentence is imposed and, on successful probation, no conviction enters the record under state law. Suspended EXECUTION of sentence: judgment and sentence are both entered, and only the serving of the sentence is suspended -- unambiguously a conviction. No reported Canadian decision on a US SIS was located.\n\nState variations:\n- Missouri (conviction: depends): SIS: completed probation leaves no conviction under state law; a closed record is retained.\n- general (conviction: depends): Read the judgment: if a sentence was imposed and merely stayed, it is a conviction everywhere.\n\nINTERPRETATION (no direct authority -- this is CanLex's reasoned view from the governing principles; treat it as a starting point, not an answer): A completed Missouri-style SIS parallels the Canadian conditional discharge closely (guilt found, no conviction registered, probation conditions) and is a strong candidate for non-recognition as a conviction under Burgon/Saini. Suspended execution is a conviction, full stop -- and note that for s. 36(1)(a)'s six-month branch Canadian courts treat the imposed (even if suspended) term as the term of imprisonment. The act branch remains available for SIS cases since guilt was found.",
+  "history": "",
+  "last_amended": "",
+  "current_to": "2026-07-10",
+  "citation": "US Dispositions Helper — suspended imposition of sentence",
+  "source_url": ""
+ },
+ {
+  "id": "commentary-disp-dui-administrative",
+  "doc_type": "commentary",
+  "act_code": "US-DISP",
+  "act_short": "US Dispositions Helper",
+  "act_name": "US criminal dispositions and the IRPA 'conviction' concept (curated CanLex commentary)",
+  "section": "dui-administrative",
+  "marginal_note": "administrative license suspension",
+  "part": "US dispositions",
+  "division": "",
+  "heading": "Is a US administrative license suspension a conviction for IRPA s. 36? (no)",
+  "text": "CURATED ANALYSIS -- commentary compiled for CanLex, not a source of law. Verify against the cited authorities before relying on it.\n\nDisposition: administrative license suspension; DUI administrative finding; civil infraction; municipal ordinance violation; administrative per se\nIs it a conviction for IRPA s. 36 purposes: NO\nAuthority status: NO AUTHORITY LOCATED -- reasoned interpretation only\n\nUS administrative per-se license suspensions (a DMV process triggered by BAC or refusal), civil infractions, and many municipal ordinance violations are not criminal proceedings and produce no criminal conviction. They cannot satisfy 'has been convicted' in s. 36. The criminal DUI charge that often runs in parallel is a separate matter: a criminal DUI conviction is a conviction (and impaired driving is a serious hybrid offence in Canada -- punishable by up to 10 years -- so a single DUI conviction typically grounds serious criminality under s. 36(1)(b) via s. 36(3)(a)). No Canadian authority was located treating an administrative finding alone as a conviction, and none is plausible.\n\nState variations:\n- general (conviction: depends): Check whether the state charges DUI criminally, as a civil infraction (rare), or both; and whether a municipal-ordinance conviction is criminal under state law -- some states prosecute ordinance violations quasi-criminally.\n\nINTERPRETATION (no direct authority -- this is CanLex's reasoned view from the governing principles; treat it as a starting point, not an answer): The administrative finding is not a conviction, but it is EVIDENCE: a per-se suspension based on a tested BAC can support an act-branch finding (s. 36(1)(c)/(2)(c)) that the person committed what would be impaired driving/driving over the limit in Canada, on a balance of probabilities. Officers should analyze the conduct, not just the disposition label.",
+  "history": "",
+  "last_amended": "",
+  "current_to": "2026-07-10",
+  "citation": "US Dispositions Helper — administrative license suspension",
+  "source_url": ""
+ }
+]

data/processed/embeddings.npz

@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
 version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
-oid sha256:5cdcff916d16dddc1353ce262bbe5b317cf9cde14f8fc60770b46eebd0f11db3
-size 37435778
+oid sha256:930c1513b63b2a597236e3ac2d19a0de1d62df8f1532c9d36bfbd0042ebeba2d
+size 37460586

tests/test_commentary.py

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+"""Unit tests for the curated-commentary pipeline (canlex/commentary.py and
+the canlex_us_disposition matcher in canlex/server.py).
+
+Offline: they run on a minimal in-memory dataset, not the curated file.
+
+    python -m unittest discover -s tests
+"""
+import unittest
+
+from canlex.commentary import BANNER, _entry_text
+from canlex.server import _match_dispositions
+
+
+def entry(**over):
+    e = {
+        "id": "test-disp",
+        "names": ["withheld adjudication", "withholding of adjudication"],
+        "is_conviction": "depends",
+        "status": "no-authority",
+        "analysis": "Body of the analysis.",
+        "state_variations": [
+            {"state": "Florida", "note": "FL note", "is_conviction": "depends"}],
+        "authorities": [
+            {"cite": "Case v Canada", "court": "FC", "pin": "para 1",
+             "holding": "Held something."}],
+        "guidance": [{"ref": "Guide", "note": "A note."}],
+        "interpretation": "Reasoned view.",
+    }
+    e.update(over)
+    return e
+
+
+class EntryTextTests(unittest.TestCase):
+    def test_carries_banner_and_flags(self):
+        text = _entry_text(entry())
+        self.assertTrue(text.startswith(BANNER))
+        self.assertIn("DEPENDS", text)
+        self.assertIn("NO AUTHORITY LOCATED", text)
+        self.assertIn("INTERPRETATION (no direct authority", text)
+
+    def test_no_interpretation_block_when_empty(self):
+        text = _entry_text(entry(interpretation="", status="settled"))
+        self.assertNotIn("INTERPRETATION", text)
+
+
+class MatcherTests(unittest.TestCase):
+    DATA = {"dispositions": [
+        entry(),
+        entry(id="other", names=["state pardon"], state_variations=[]),
+    ]}
+
+    def test_matches_by_name_tokens(self):
+        got = _match_dispositions(self.DATA, "court withheld adjudication", None)
+        self.assertEqual(got[0]["id"], "test-disp")
+
+    def test_state_boost_breaks_ties(self):
+        got = _match_dispositions(self.DATA, "adjudication", "FL")
+        self.assertTrue(got and got[0]["id"] == "test-disp")
+
+    def test_no_match_returns_empty(self):
+        self.assertEqual(
+            _match_dispositions(self.DATA, "entirely unrelated words", None), [])
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    unittest.main()