Legislation intended for one purpose ought not to be used for another?

Today’s decision in J.H. v. F.A., 2009 ONCA 17 provides a clear statement of the principle that provincial family law legislation cannot be used to frustrate federal immigration legislation.  Although the result is hardly surprising it does suggest the more general rule that legislation designed for one use ought not to be put to another use.  The Court rules:

 

[23]          The purpose of non-removal orders under the CLRA is not to frustrate the deportation of persons who have been ordered removed from Canada pursuant to the relevant immigration legislation but to prevent parents from removing children from the jurisdiction in contested family law proceedings: see Wozniak v. Brunton (2004), 1 R.F.L. (6th) 429 ( Ont. S.C.), at para. 23; Varvara v. Constantino, [2005] O.J. No. 861 (Q.L.), at para. 33.  It is not open to applicants scheduled to be removed by federal immigration authorities to use the family courts to stay in Ontario “under the guise of determining [the] best interests of a child”: Augustin v. Canada (M.P.S.E.P) and Leonty (27 February 2008), Toronto 07/FA/014805 ( Ont. S.C.), at para. 9.