Obviously there are many questions raised by the CBSA's actions in this case. The spokespersons interpretation that Mr. Chan was not a Canadian citizen, but could apply for citizenship is incorrect. Based on the facts and law, Mr. Chan was a Canadian citizen by birth. Therefore, he was under no obligation to obtain proof of citizenship or any similar document, such as a passport, although those obviously would have been helpful in this case. Secondly, the continued detention of an individual working as a professional, ostensibly with funds to use as a deposit to ensure his continued attendance at detention reviews, where identity was not an issue (he was a US passport holder) raises questions as to the good faith of the CBSA in seeking continued detention in this case and also the decision to continue to detain him, made, presumably by the Immigration Division in this matter. Criticism of the CBSA's policies regarding detention procedures have been well documented on this blog and elsewhere, but at least in most of the cases described there was some question regarding status or identity. In this case, this seems to have been a case of massive hard headedness and overreach. A precedential awarding of significant damages to Mr. Chan in this case could have the effect of deterring similar CBSA actions in future.