Case Law

Is it reasonable for the RPD to rely upon evidence of the refugee’s lack of subjective [let alone any] knowledge that use of a passport confers diplomatic protection to rebut the presumption that a refugee who acquires and travels on a passport issued by their country of origin has intended to avail themselves of that state’s protection? Yes. Is it reasonable for the RPD to rely upon evidence that a refugee took measures to protect themselves against their agent of persecution [or that of their family member who is the principal refugee applicant] to rebut the presumption that a refugee who acquires [or renews] a passport issued by their country of origin and uses it to return to their country of origin has intended to avail themselves of that state’s protection? Yes.

29 March 2022 | Judicial Body: Canada: Federal Court of Appeal | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - Diplomatic protection - Passports | Countries: Canada - Colombia

I have concluded that the evidence establishes that the children would, on a balance of probabilities, suffer serious harm if returned to their habitual residence of Kuwait. Ontario therefore may and should exercise jurisdiction to determine custody and access. I have also concluded that it was an error to order the return of the children pending the determination of their refugee claim.

29 July 2020 | Judicial Body: Canada: Court of Appeal for Ontario | Topic(s): Children's rights - Children-at-risk - Physical harm - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Canada - Kuwait

The Applicants challenge the validity and the constitutionality of the legislation implementing the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America For Cooperation in the Examination of Refugee Status Claims from Nationals of Third Countries (referred to as the “Safe Third Country Agreement” or “STCA”). The Applicants allege that by returning ineligible refugee claimants to the United States (US), Canada exposes them to risks in the form of detention, refoulement, and other violations of their rights contrary to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS at 137 (Refugee Convention or RT) and contrary to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT, collectively referred to as the Conventions).

22 July 2020 | Judicial Body: Canada: Federal Court | Topic(s): Safe third country | Countries: Canada - United States of America

19 August 2019 | Judicial Body: Canada: Federal Court of Appeal | Topic(s): Appeal / Right to appeal - Family reunification - Refoulement - Safe third country | Countries: Bangladesh - Canada - Colombia - Jordan - Syrian Arab Republic - United States of America

Courts — Jurisdiction — Habeas corpus — Exceptions to exercise of jurisdiction by provincial superior courts — Immigration detainee applying for habeas corpus — Superior court declining jurisdiction to hear application on basis that detention review scheme in Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is complete, comprehensive and expert statutory scheme providing for review at least as broad as that available by way of habeas corpus and no less advantageous — Whether superior court erred in declining jurisdiction — Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.

10 May 2019 | Judicial Body: Canada: Supreme Court | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Habeas corpus - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Canada - Pakistan

These applications for judicial review involve a constitutional challenge to a part of the Designated Countries of Origin [DCO] regime established under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. This Court has previously determined that one aspect of this regime withstands constitutional scrutiny. Other cases have found that the differential treatment of refugee claimants from a DCO is inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter]. In this case, the Applicants challenge paragraph 112(2) (b.1) of the IRPA on the basis that it infringes subsection 15(1) of the Charter. This paragraph precludes a refugee claimant from a DCO from applying for a pre-removal risk assessment [PRRA] before 36 months have elapsed from the last determination of their risk before the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] or the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board [IRB].

20 March 2019 | Judicial Body: Canada: Federal Court | Topic(s): Safe country of origin | Countries: Canada - Hungary

paragraph 112(2) (b.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, is declared to be inconsistent with subsection 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, insofar as it concerns nationals of countries designated pursuant to section 109.1(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; and the following words - “or, in the case of a person who is a national of a country that is designated under subsection 109.1(1), less than 36 months,” - in paragraph 112(2) (b.1) shall have no force or effect with respect to such nationals;

20 March 2019 | Judicial Body: Canada: Federal Court | Topic(s): Constitutional law - Equality before the law - Safe country of origin | Countries: Canada - Hungary

1 December 2016 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Topic(s): Freedom of expression - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: Canada - Saudi Arabia