Short answer: a pending criminal charge is not a conviction, so the conviction-based paragraphs of the law (IRPA s.36(1)(b) and s.36(2)(b), which both begin "having been convicted") generally do not apply while a charge is still outstanding. But that does not mean a pending charge is harmless at the border. Where inadmissibility can still arise on the facts of an unresolved case, it runs through a different route: s.36(1)(c) and s.36(2)(c), which deal with "committing an act outside Canada" that is an offence where it happened and that would be an offence in Canada. Under IRPA s.33, an officer can rely on facts for which there are "reasonable grounds to believe" they occurred, a lower standard than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" proof needed for a criminal conviction. In practice, many people are simply examined and admitted while a charge is pending, but an officer retains the discretion to refuse entry, and the outcome is decided case by case. This guide explains the framework in plain language, what officers may be able to see, how bail conditions factor in, and what options (such as a Temporary Resident Permit) may exist.
Explore Your Admissibility: Free
Pending charges + travel to Canada is a high-risk combination. Explore your situation anonymously before you book.
Start Free ExplorerThe Legal Framework: IRPA s.36, Convictions vs. Committing an Act
Criminal inadmissibility to Canada is governed by IRPA s.36. Many people assume their pending charge falls under the same paragraphs that apply to convictions, but that is not how the Act is worded. Paragraphs s.36(1)(b) and s.36(2)(b) both begin with the words "having been convicted" outside Canada, so on their face they require a conviction, not merely an outstanding charge. The provisions that can reach an unresolved case are different ones: s.36(1)(c) and s.36(2)(c), which speak of "committing an act outside Canada." What this means for you is that a pending charge is not automatically treated as a conviction, but the conduct behind it can still be examined.
IRPA s.36(1)(c): Serious Criminality (Committing an Act)
Section 36(1)(c) makes a foreign national inadmissible for serious criminality for "committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years." Note the key words: this paragraph is about committing the act, not about being convicted, which is why it can come into play before a foreign case is finished. By contrast, s.36(1)(b) requires "having been convicted" of such an offence outside Canada.
IRPA s.36(2)(c): Criminality (Committing an Act)
Section 36(2)(c) makes a foreign national inadmissible for criminality for "committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament." Again this turns on committing the act rather than on a conviction. The parallel conviction paragraph, s.36(2)(b), requires "having been convicted" outside Canada of an equivalent indictable offence (or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence).
How can an officer act before there is any conviction? IRPA s.33 says the facts that constitute inadmissibility "include facts for which there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have occurred, are occurring or may occur." Reasonable grounds to believe is a lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard for a criminal conviction): it requires a bona fide belief in a serious possibility based on credible, compelling evidence. What this means for you: the existence of a charge does not, by itself, equal a conviction, but the officer may look at the underlying facts and decide whether there are reasonable grounds to believe an act described in s.36(1)(c) or s.36(2)(c) occurred. Whether to do so, and what to conclude, is within the officer's discretion and is decided case by case.
What CBSA Officers May Be Able to See
CBSA officers at ports of entry can query law-enforcement databases when you present your travel document. For US travellers in particular, Canadian agencies with access to the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) can, through established law-enforcement arrangements, query the US National Crime Information Center (NCIC) operated by the FBI. What appears in any given query depends on what has been entered in the relevant database and on the arrangement between the countries involved; charge information from outside the US is not uniformly visible and varies by country. In general terms:
- ⚠️ A criminal record entry, and in some cases a pending matter or outstanding warrant, may surface in a database query when your passport or ID is presented at the border
- ⚠️ Officers may also ask you directly about any criminal charges or history, pending or otherwise, and your answers form part of the record
- ⚠️ Providing false or misleading answers about your criminal history, including a pending charge, can amount to misrepresentation under IRPA s.40, a separate ground of inadmissibility that generally carries a 5-year bar on entering Canada and on most immigration applications
Misrepresentation is treated very seriously. Under IRPA s.40, directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding a material fact is a distinct ground of inadmissibility that generally results in a 5-year period of inadmissibility (s.40(2)(a)), and it is not resolved by criminal rehabilitation; it simply expires. The consequences of an untruthful answer can therefore be far more lasting than the underlying charge. If you are unsure how to answer a question about a pending matter, that is a point to discuss with a licensed immigration lawyer or a CICC-regulated consultant before you travel.
Bail Conditions and Travel Restrictions
A separate and immediate issue sits alongside the immigration question: if a court has released you on bail (or on a release order / conditions of release, depending on your country) while your charge is pending, those conditions may themselves limit travel, entirely independently of Canadian immigration law. This is a frequent source of trouble that has nothing to do with admissibility:
- ✓ Many release conditions expressly prohibit leaving the jurisdiction, the state or province, or the country, or require you to surrender your passport or stay within a set area
- ✓ Travelling internationally in breach of those conditions can be a separate criminal offence in the place where the case is pending, and can lead to revocation of release, a new charge, or a warrant, none of which helps at a border
- ✓ If an officer reviews release conditions you present, terms that restrict travel can read as a significant concern, and the officer decides what weight to give them
Because release conditions are set by the court handling your case, the only reliable way to know whether your specific conditions permit international travel is to confirm with the criminal defence lawyer or court handling that matter. This is a legal question about your own case, not something this guide can answer for you.
What to Bring If You Attempt to Enter Canada
If you have pending charges and intend to travel to Canada, and your criminal defence lawyer has confirmed you are not in violation of bail conditions, the following documents may help your case at the border:
Court Documents
Official documentation showing the nature of the charge, the scheduled court dates, and the current status of the proceedings.
Bail Conditions Document
Your full bail conditions, showing what travel is permitted. Officers will want to know you are not violating conditions by being in Canada.
Attorney Letter
A letter from your criminal defence lawyer confirming your case status and that your travel is not in violation of any court order or bail conditions.
Travel Purpose Documentation
Clear and compelling reason for your travel to Canada, business contract, medical appointment, immediate family visit. The stronger the reason, the better.
No guarantees: even with full documentation, a CBSA officer retains the authority to refuse entry, and no document set can guarantee admission while a charge is pending. Officers exercise discretion on the facts in front of them, so being allowed in on one trip does not guarantee the same result on the next. Treat being turned away as a real possibility, and plan travel accordingly.
Temporary Resident Permit (TRP): An Option in Some Cases
If an officer concludes that you are inadmissible, a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) under IRPA s.24(1) is the mechanism that can still allow entry for a limited time despite the inadmissibility. A TRP is discretionary and not guaranteed: an officer must be satisfied that your need to enter or remain in Canada outweighs the risk to Canadian society, which is a balancing exercise rather than a fixed test. Because criminal rehabilitation requires a completed sentence and a set waiting period afterward, it is generally not available while a charge is still pending and unresolved, which is part of why the TRP route is the one usually discussed in pending-charge situations.
A TRP can be requested at a port of entry, where it is decided on the spot and refusal can mean being turned away, or applied for in advance through a visa office (IRCC). Applying in advance generally allows a more thorough review and avoids gambling on a single border interaction. As of December 1, 2025, the government fee for a TRP is $246.25 (confirm the current fee on IRCC, as fees change). Approval, fee paid or not, is never assured.
See the Full TRP Guide📊 Unsure how your pending charges affect your admissibility?
Get a detailed Admissibility Breakdown showing how IRPA s.36 relates to your circumstances, charge type, Canadian equivalent, complexity overview, and next steps reference. Don't show up at the border without knowing your risk.
Get Admissibility Breakdown → $49.99Frequently Asked Questions
I was charged but charges were later dismissed, am I still inadmissible?+
A dismissal or acquittal means there is no conviction, so the conviction paragraphs (s.36(1)(b) and s.36(2)(b)) do not apply. IRPA s.36(3)(b) also states that inadmissibility under s.36 may not be based on a conviction for which there has been a final determination of an acquittal. That said, an officer can still ask about the circumstances, and in principle the "committing an act" paragraphs (s.36(1)(c) / s.36(2)(c)) look at conduct rather than the court result, so the facts may still be examined. In most straightforward cases a clear dismissal removes the concern, but the officer decides. See our guide on dismissed and expunged records for more detail.
Will CBSA know about my pending charges if they are from the US?+
For US travellers, Canadian agencies with access to the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) can, through established law-enforcement arrangements, query the US National Crime Information Center (NCIC) operated by the FBI. What appears in any given query depends on what has been entered in the relevant database, so pending charges that appear in NCIC or state databases may be visible to CBSA officers at the border, though this is not guaranteed. Charges from other countries may or may not be visible depending on the bilateral relationship.
I have pending charges for a minor offence, is the risk the same?+
The seriousness of the charge affects whether s.36(1) (serious criminality) or s.36(2) (non-serious criminality) applies, but both provisions apply to pending charges, not just convictions. Even charges for relatively minor offences can trigger CBSA scrutiny. The specific nature of the charge and its Canadian equivalent are critical factors.
Should I contact a Canadian immigration lawyer before trying to enter Canada with pending charges?+
It is commonly recommended. A licensed Canadian immigration lawyer or a CICC-regulated immigration consultant can assess the specific charge, its likely Canadian Criminal Code equivalent, which inadmissibility paragraph (if any) could apply, and whether requesting a TRP in advance makes sense. Travelling without that analysis leaves more to chance at the border. This guide is educational and is not a substitute for advice about your own case.
Does a pending charge fall under s.36(1)(b) or s.36(1)(c)?+
It is an important distinction. Paragraphs s.36(1)(b) and s.36(2)(b) both begin "having been convicted," so on their wording they require a conviction, not an open charge. The paragraphs that can apply to an unresolved matter are s.36(1)(c) and s.36(2)(c), which address "committing an act outside Canada." So a pending charge is generally analysed under the "committing an act" route, assessed on the "reasonable grounds to believe" standard in IRPA s.33, rather than under the conviction paragraphs.
Is a pending DUI charge serious criminality in Canada?+
It depends on the Canadian equivalent and the timing. Impaired operation under Criminal Code s.320.14 carries a maximum of 10 years (s.320.19) for offences committed on or after December 18, 2018 (the Bill C-46 changes), which puts it in the serious-criminality tier (a maximum of at least 10 years). Whether a pending foreign DUI is examined under s.36(1)(c) turns on equivalency to the Canadian offence and on the facts an officer believes occurred. A licensed professional can assess equivalency for a specific charge; this guide cannot.
Will entering Canada with a pending charge affect a future immigration application?+
It can. Anything you declare or that an officer records can become part of your immigration history, and an untruthful answer about a pending matter can lead to a misrepresentation finding under IRPA s.40, which generally carries a 5-year inadmissibility separate from any criminality issue. Once the underlying case is resolved, the analysis may change again (for example, a conviction could engage s.36(1)(b)/(2)(b), while an acquittal generally would not). Tracking how your own timeline interacts with these provisions is best done with a licensed professional.
Can I just wait at the US-Canada land border and try, then turn around if refused?+
Attempting entry and withdrawing is something travellers sometimes consider, but it is not risk-free. An examination still creates a record, an officer can record an inadmissibility opinion, and any false statement made during that examination can itself trigger a misrepresentation issue under IRPA s.40. There is also no guarantee you can simply withdraw on your own terms. Because outcomes depend on the officer and the facts, this is a situation to discuss with a licensed immigration professional rather than improvise.
Important: This guide explains the general legal framework under IRPA s.36 (and the s.33 evidentiary standard) and does not assess any specific charge or situation. Whether your pending charge creates inadmissibility depends on the nature of the charge, the Canadian Criminal Code equivalent, and the specific circumstances. Consult a licensed Canadian immigration lawyer before travelling to Canada with pending criminal charges. Not legal advice.
🍁 Your Next Step
Learn How the Law Applies
Understand how your situation maps to Canadian law
Explore Your Admissibility: Free →Official sources
This page is based on law and policy published by the Government of Canada.