Ex-CBSA employee improperly passed on data to potential real estate clients

Article content

Kalisa admitted to the board that he wrote invitation letters and conducted database searches for at least seven individuals. In each other those letters, he identified himself as a CBSA employee and wrote his agency title, the tribunal wrote.

Article content

“When he used his title in a letter supporting a friend’s, client’s, or potential client’s immigration application, (Kalisa) did so in an effort to increase the chances that it would be approved,” reads the decision.

Article content

“If it was approved, and the client or potential client became able to travel to Canada to view properties, (Kalisa) could gain a personal and business advantage, whether in the short or long term.”

Article content

In another case, Kalisa looked into IRCC’s system to see why a friend’s immigration application had been denied and advised their spouse on a course of action to increase the chances of getting the application approved, reads the decision.

Article content

This friend happened to want to move to Canada to buy a property with their spouse and had hired Kalisa as a real estate agent.

Article content

Throughout the grievance process, Kalisa denied any wrongdoing, offering the tribunal various explanations for his actions.

Article content

Article content

In many of the “indefinite number” of cases where he looked into an immigration file at the applicant’s request, he said he acting to defend Canada’s security by making sure they had not participated in the Rwandan genocide.

Article content

He also said that he generally shared information the applicants already knew, like that their request was being processed.

Article content

But the tribunal dismissed his explanations outright, calling parts of his testimony “implausible or unpersuasive.”

Article content

“It seems unlikely to me that that trend would continue for 13 years… if the grievor was merely confirming to those concerned that their applications were being processed,” wrote the board.

Article content

“I find that it is more likely than not that he shared additional information not available to the public about the status of the applications in question.”

Article content

The labour board also concluded that Kalisa, who required a top-secret security clearance for his work at CBSA, failed to tell his employer that he knew that one of his long-time friends was a suspected criminal.

Article content

He knew that because, in 2009, the Rwandan embassy gave Kalisa a list of suspected war criminals that included his friend’s name, identified in the decision as “D.N.”. Then a few years later, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) also met with Kalisa to discuss concerns that D.N. might be a war criminal.

Article content

Article content

Kalisa told the tribunal that he never disclosed his relationship to D.N. because he was certain his friend was not a war criminal. But the tribunal disagreed.

Article content

“It was not for (Kalisa) to decide whether the embassy was right or wrong to include D.N.’s name on a list of suspected war criminals… He was obligated to inform his manager of his association with D.N. He did not,” wrote the tribunal.

Article content

In fact, it was only after CSIS began an investigation into Kalisa in 2014 regarding a series of trips he took to Rwanda booked by D.N. did CBSA begin looking into its employee’s work activities.

Article content

In 2016, CBSA launched a review of Kalisa’s security clearance, which revealed his unauthorized searches in CBSA and IRCC databases for years. He was suspended shortly after and fired one year later.

Article content

Kalisa, who represented himself in front of the labour board, declined to comment on the decision. But he told National Post in an email that he was consulting with lawyers with the aim to file discrimination lawsuits against CBSA and his former union, which he said refused to represent him in his grievance.

Article content

“The employer refused to hear the discrimination argument, and the union refused to represent me. I had to represent myself against two of the employer’s lawyers,” he wrote.

Article content

National Post

Article content

[email protected]

Article content

Article content