Recent Developments in Refugee Law
|
|
- Julian Nickolas Foster
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Recent Developments in Refugee Law Appellate Cases of Note Banafsheh Sokhansanj, Department of Justice
2 Disclaimer This presentation reflects the views of Banafsheh Sokhansanj only, and not necessarily those of the Department of Justice, or any other department, agency, member or representative of the Government of Canada
3 Recent jurisprudence of interest Supreme Court of Canada Standard of review in immigration context (Khosa) Federal Court of Appeal State protection (Carillo) Evidentiary burden/ standard of proof (Carillo, Parshottam and Raza) Section 97 of the IRPA (Sellan, Prophete) Scope of Article 1E and 1F(b) exclusion clauses (Parshottam and Jayasekara) Non-refoulement (Nagalingam) Canada/United States Safe Third Country Agreement (Canadian Council for Refugees)
4 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
5 Canada (M.E.I.) v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 Appeal of a judicial review of an IAD decision dismissing a removal order appeal that was based on H&C grounds Khosa impacts judicial review of decisions made by all immigration tribunals, not just the IAD Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal applied conflicting, pre-dunsmuir, standards of review (patent unreasonableness vs. reasonableness simpliciter) Key Issue before the SCC: Interplay of Federal Courts Act, s. 18.1(4) and common law standard of review analysis as set out by SCC in Dunsmuir
6 Khosa, cont d (Majority) FCA, s.18.1(4) sets out grounds of review not standards of review - Dunsmuir principles still apply Post Dunsmuir and Khosa there are two standards of review only: reasonableness and correctness Reasonableness is a deferential standard, reviewing Court does not reweigh the evidence Court must determine whether the outcome falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.
7 Khosa, cont d (Majority) Guidance from the SCC on standard of review re: FCA, s.18.1(4) grounds for review: 18.1(4)(a) Jurisdictional issues: correctness 18.1(4)(b) natural justice: correctness 18.1(4)(c) Error of law: generally correctness, but the common law will stay the hand of the judge in certain cases if the interpretation is by an expert adjudicator interpreting his or her home statute or a closely related statute. 18.1(4)(d) Error of fact: reasonableness; and Parliament intended a high degree of deference
8 Khosa, result SCC allowed appeal Standard of review of IAD decision was reasonableness IAD s decision was reasonable weight to be assigned to evidence with respect to Mr. Khosa s prospects for rehabilitation was a matter for the tribunal, in the application of immigration policy, and not for the reviewing court. IAD was not bound by findings of the criminal court.
9 FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
10 State Protection / Legal and Evidentiary Burdens of Proof
11 Canada (M.C.I.) v. Carrillo 2008 FCA 94 Further to Hinzman v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2007 FCA 171 A claimant seeking to rebut the presumption of state protection must adduce relevant, reliable and convincing evidence which satisfies the trier of fact on a balance of probabilities that state protection is inadequate Local failure to provide protection does not meet the test (affirming Kadenko) Huerta v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2009 FC 216 summarizes current law on state protection
12 Canada (M.C.I.) v. Carrillo (RPD Decision state protection) FCA distinguished between the concepts of burden of proof standard of proof and nature or quality of the evidence required to rebut the presumption of state protection Burden of proof for state protection: decision-maker must be satisfied that state protection is inadequate The standard of proof for this legal burden is the balance of probabilities Evidence must be probative, reliable and convincing FCA appears to be reaffirming and expanding on Li v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2005 FCA 1, where the Court distinguished between the burden of proof and the legal burden under IRPA, ss. 96 and 97
13 Parshottam v. Canada (M.C.I.) 2008 FCA 355 Appellant s PRRA application was refused on basis that, at time of determination of the PRRA, the Appellant was excluded from protection under Article 1E of the Refugees Convention Article 1E applies, inter alia, to individuals who have permanent resident status in a country other than the one wherein they allege they would be at risk Appellant, who alleged risk in Uganda, his country of citizenship, had been a permanent resident of United States when he was admitted to Canada; however, there was evidence that his status had since lapsed
14 Parshottam v. Canada (M.C.I.) (PRRA Decision Article 1E Exclusion) Both majority and minority reasons include guidance on standard of proof and the application of that standard by the PRRA officer See later slides re: scope of Article 1E
15 Parshottam v. Canada (M.C.I.) (Standard of proof / application of the standard) Majority and Minority reasons are consistent Standard of proof under Article 1E is the balance of probabilities. Absent a statement otherwise, assume officer applied this standard (F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53) PRRA officer s application of the standard of proof to the facts is reviewed against a standard of reasonableness The Court is highly deferential to the officer s findings: - It is not for the Court to determine for itself whether it would have concluded that evidence is sufficiently clear, convincing and cogent to satisfy a balance of probabilities (citing F.H.) - Evaluation of the evidence before her was at the core of [the officer s] expertise
16 Raza v. Canada (M.C.I.) 2007 FCA 385 IRPA, s. 113(a) (PRRA - new evidence) an applicant whose claim to refugee protection has been rejected may present only new evidence that arose after the rejection or was not reasonably available, or that the applicant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection Date of evidence is not determinative, nor is compliance with the text of s.113(a) alone
17 Raza v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2007 FCA 385 (PRRA Decision new evidence under IRPA, s.113(a)) There are five criteria; if any one criteria is not met the evidence need not be considered Is the evidence credible? Is the evidence relevant? Is the evidence new (i.e. is about a circumstance that arose after the RPD hearing, proves a fact unknown to the claimant at the time of the RPD hearing, or contradicts a finding of fact by the RPD)? Is the evidence material? Express statutory conditions
18 Legal and Evidentiary Burdens Questions Is the door now open wider for decision-making based on insufficiency of evidence, as opposed to credibility [Ferguson v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2008 FC 1067]? Is the burden of proof under s.96 of the IRPA effectively now a balance of probabilities, as opposed to more than a mere possibility? Are findings as to whether the evidence is sufficiently clear, convincing and cogent to satisfy the balance of probabilities immune from review?
19 Section 97 of the IRPA Persons in Need of Protection
20 Canada (M.C.I.) v. Sellan 2008 FCA 381 Court addressed issue of whether a separate analysis is required under IRPA, s.97 in cases where the tribunal has found that the claimant s evidence lacks credibility, except as to identity where the Board makes a general finding that the claimant lacks credibility, that determination is sufficient to dispose of the claim unless there is independent and credible documentary evidence in the record capable of supporting a positive disposition of the claim. The claimant bears the onus of demonstrating there was such evidence.
21 Prophete v. Canada (M.C.I.) 2009 FCA 31 Court declined to answer following question: Where the population of a country faces a generalized risk of crime, does the limitation of section 97 (1)(b)(ii) of the IRPA apply to a subgroup of individuals who face a significantly heightened risk of such crime? Because: Taking into consideration the broader federal scheme of which section 97 is a part, answering the certified question in a factual vacuum would, depending on the circumstances of each case, result in unduly narrowing or widening the scope of subparagraph 97(1)(b)(ii) of the Act.
22 Prophete, cont d Nonetheless, the Court provided some guidance with respect to the scope of IRPA s.97 IRPA, s.97 analysis requires an individualized inquiry on the basis of claimant s evidence of present or prospective risk to himself/herself (i.e. a personalized risk) Also, Court upheld the Applications Judge s finding that, here the applicant does not face a personalized risk that is not faced generally by other individuals in or from Haiti. The risk of all forms of criminality is general and felt by all Haitians. While a specific number of individuals may be targeted more frequently because of their wealth, all Haitians are at risk of becoming the victims of violence.
23 Section 98 of the IRPA - Exclusion Clauses
24 Parshottam v. Canada (M.C.I.) 2008 FCA 355 Appellant s PRRA application was refused on basis that, at time of determination of the PRRA, the Appellant was excluded from protection under Article 1E of the Refugees Convention Article 1E applies, inter alia, to individuals who have permanent resident status in a country other than the one wherein they allege they would be at risk Appellant, who alleged risk in Uganda, his country of citizenship, had been a permanent resident of United States when he was admitted to Canada; however, there was evidence that his status had since lapsed
25 Parshottam v. Canada (M.C.I.) (PRRA Decision exclusion under Article 1E) Majority (Evans and Ryer, JJA) Certified question is not determinative, and declined to answer Question was whether the PRRA officer should have assessed the applicability of Article 1E as at the time the PRRA application was determined, or at the time the Appellant was admitted to Canada In obiter majority stated that it is not settled law that Article 1E is assessed as at the time of admission
26 Parshottam v. Canada (M.C.I.) (PRRA Decision exclusion under Article 1E) Minority (Sharlow, JA, concurring in the result) It is open to the PRRA officer to assess the application of Article 1E as at the time of admission, even if the applicant has lost status in the interim It also is open to the officer to assess the application of Article 1E as at the time of PRRA determination, if the applicant has lost status in the interim The officer should consider what steps the applicant had taken to maintain status in the interim
27 Jayasekara v. Canada (M.C.I.) 2008 FCA 404 RPD determined that appellant was excluded from protection under IRPA, s.98, on the basis of Article 1F(b) (reasonable grounds to believe he had committed a serious non-political crime prior to admission to Canada) Appellant was a citizen of Sri Lanka who had been convicted of selling drugs (opium) in the United States.
28 Jayasekara v. Canada (M.C.I.) Exclusion Article 1F(b) Serous non-political crime Appellant argued that Article 1F(b) did not apply to him because he had completed his sentence prior to coming to Canada FCA held that completion of a criminal sentence does not exempt an individual from exclusion under Article 1F(b) RPD did not err in finding the Appellant excluded from protection on the basis of Article 1F(b) appeal dismissed
29 Jayasekara v. Canada (M.C.I.) Exclusion Article 1F(b) Serous non-political crime FCA affirmed the purposes of Article 1F(b) exclusion as set out by Decary, JA in Zrig v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2003 FCA 178 These purposes include ensuring that the country of refuge can protect its own people by closing its borders to criminals whom it regards as undesirable because of the seriousness of the ordinary crimes which it suspects such criminals of having committed [from Zrig]
30 Jayasekara v. Canada (M.C.I.) Exclusion Article 1F(b) Serous non-political crime Factors in assessing whether crime is serious include: Equivalent offence, and possible penalty, in Canada Elements of the crime Mode of prosecution Penalty prescribed Facts of the crime Mitigating and aggravating circumstances However, there is no balancing against factors extraneous to the facts and circumstances underlying the conviction Also, while regard should be had to international standards, the perspective of the receiving state or nation cannot be ignored
31 Exceptions to Non-refoulement IRPA, s.115(2)(b) Inadmissibility on the basis of organized criminality
32 Nagalingam v. Canada (M.C.I.) 2008 FCA 153 Appeal from judicial review of Minister s opinion under IRPA, s.115(2)(b) that Appellant should not be allowed to remain in Canada as a result of nature and severity of acts committed Appellant was a Sri Lankan citizen who had been determined to be a Convention refugee Deportation order had been made against the Appellant as a result of inadmissibility for organized criminality (IRPA, s. 37(1)(a)), based on his involvement with the A.K. Kannan gang
33 Nagalingam, cont d Court set out a five step analysis under IRPA, s.115(2)(b): (1) A protected person or a Convention refugee benefits from the principle of non-refoulement recognized by IRPA, s.115(1), unless the exception provided by s.115(2)(b) applies. (2) For s.115(2)(b) to apply, the individual must be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights or organized criminality. (3) If the individual is inadmissible on such grounds, the Delegate must determine whether the person should not be allowed to remain in Canada on the basis of the nature and severity of acts committed or of danger to the security of Canada.
34 Nagalingam, cont d (4) Once such a determination is made, the Delegate must proceed to a Charter of Rights, s.7 analysis. To this end, the Delegate must assess whether the individual, if removed to his country of origin, will personally face a risk to life, security or liberty, on a balance of probabilities. This assessment must be made contemporaneously; the Convention refugee or protected person cannot rely on his or her status to trigger the application of section 7 of the Charter. (5) Continuing his analysis, the Delegate must balance the nature and severity of the acts committed or of the danger to the security of Canada against the degree of risk, as well as against any other humanitarian and compassionate considerations.
35 Nagalingam, cont d Court also provided guidance re: complicity under s.115(2)(b) there must be reasonable grounds to believe that the person committed, himself or through complicity, as defined in our criminal legal system, acts of organized criminality (para. 68) the Delegate had to reasonably link the appellant to the acts of the organization in which he was a member, taking into consideration, if applicable, his role and responsibilities within the criminal organization. In doing so, the Delegate had to caution himself that it is only in exceptional cases that a Convention refugee or a protected person will lose the benefit of subsection 115(1). Thus, only acts which are of substantial gravity will meet this high threshold. (para. 76)
36 Canada/United States Safe Third Country Agreement
37 Canadian Council for Refugees Challenge to validity of the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement and IRP Reg., ss implementing that Agreement Under the Safe Third Country Agreement refugee claimants who enter Canada from the United States at a land border port of entry are, with some exceptions, sent back to the United States The enabling authority for IRP Reg., ss is in IRPA, ss
38 Canadian Council for Refugees Decision Being Appealed Federal Court had declared IRP Regs., ss to be ultra vires, based on a finding that the United States does not comply with Article 33 of the Refugees Convention and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ) The Federal Court held that this compliance was a pre-condition under IRPA, s. 102(1) for promulgation of IRP Regs., ss
39 Canadian Council for Refugees Decision Being Appealed, cont d The Federal Court also held that the application of the Safe Third Country Agreement to (certain classes of) refugee claimants would breach sections 7 and 15 of the Charter of Rights
40 Canadian Council for Refugees Majority (Noel and Richard, JJA) The promulgation of a regulation is not a tribunal decision The vires of the regulation is reviewed against a correctness standard Events and facts that postdate the coming into force of IRP Regs., ss are not relevant in assessing the vires of the regulations Actual compliance with the Refugees Convention and/or CAT is not a precondition for designation of a safe third country under the IRPA; it is sufficient if the Governor in Council ( GIC ) has considered the four factors set out in IRPA, s. 101(2) The GIC is presumed to have acted in good faith and for a proper purpose
41 Canadian Council for Refugees Majority (Noel and Richard, JJA) Insofar as the Applications Judge found that the GIC s failure to conduct ongoing review of the United States as a safe third country, this was not alleged in the Application for Leave and for Judicial Review, and, therefore, should not have been considered In any event, the GIC complied with its review obligations under the IRPA
42 Canadian Council for Refugees Majority (Noel and Richard, JJA) Charter of Rights challenge should not have been heard or determined The two public interest applicants based this challenge on a hypothetical class of refugee claimants However, constitutional challenges to legislation should not be determined in the abstract, unless it can be shown that the legislation otherwise would be immune from challenge
43 Canadian Council for Refugees Majority (Noel and Richard, JJA) The unnamed applicant, John Doe, was outside Canada; he had not presented himself at the Canadian border There was no evidence that a refugee would have to bring a challenge from outside Canada A Charter of Rights challenge should be assessed only in the proper context, that is, when made from within Canada by an individual who has been denied asylum and faces a real risk of refoulement in being sent back to the United States
44 Canadian Council for Refugees Minority (Evans, JA, concurring in the result) Judicial review should have been dismissed without hearing the merits on any of the issues Safe Third Country Agreement and IRP Regs., ss are not engaged on the facts, and alternative remedies would be available if a potential breach of the Charter of Rights in a specific case Suggests process for a risk assessment if, in fact, a real risk of refoulement if returned to the United States, and the Safe Third Country Agreement and regulations may not lawfully be applied
45 Parting Words No administrative regime in Canada has a more profound impact upon the lives of individuals than that governing immigration and the determination of refugee status. Law Society of Upper Canada v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2008 FCA 243 at para. 4
Khosa: Extending and Clarifying Dunsmuir
Khosa: Extending and Clarifying Dunsmuir Andrew Wray, Pinto Wray James LLP Christian Vernon, Pinto Wray James LLP [awray@pintowrayjames.com] [cvernon@pintowrayjames.com] Introduction The Supreme Court
More informationThe Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (Respondents)
A-473-05 2006 FCA 326 Jothiravi Sittampalam (Appellant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (Respondents) INDEXED AS: SITTAMPALAM v.
More informationCase Name: Rocha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Case Name: Rocha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Between Andro Rocha, Applicant, and The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent [2015] F.C.J. No. 1087 2015 FC 1070 Docket:
More informationHeld, the appeal should be allowed. Per Noël J.A. (Richard C.J. concurring): The matter raised herein was a pure vires issue. Therefore the applicable
CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES v. CANADA [2009] 3 F.C.R. A-37-08 2008 FCA 229 Her Majesty The Queen (Appellant) v. Canadian Council for Refugees, Canadian Council of Churches, Amnesty International and
More informationLAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
INTRODUCTION Purpose and currency of checklist. This checklist is designed to be used with the CLIENT IDENTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION PROCEDURE (A-1) checklist. It is intended for use by immigration counsel
More informationBill C-31 Protecting Canada s Immigration System Act (PCISA) Presented by the Law Office of Adela Crossley
Bill C-31 Protecting Canada s Immigration System Act (PCISA) Presented by the Law Office of Adela Crossley Disclaimer The information contained in this presentation is based upon a legislative summary
More informationAs soon as possible in s. 48(2) of IRPA: Not possible to Enforce Removals in Breach of the Rule of Law and the Charter
As soon as possible in s. 48(2) of IRPA: Not possible to Enforce Removals in Breach of the Rule of Law and the Charter Presented at the Canadian Bar Association 2014 National Immigration Law Conference
More informationEtienne v. MPSEP: Constitutional Challenge to the PRRA Bar (s. 112(2)(b.1) of the IRPA) Presented at the CARL Conference, October 16, 2014
Etienne v. MPSEP: Constitutional Challenge to the PRRA Bar (s. 112(2)(b.1) of the IRPA) Presented at the CARL Conference, October 16, 2014 1 The PRRA BAR was Manifestly Unconstitutional The PRRA Bar constitutional
More informationAhani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 72, 2002
Ahani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 72, 2002 SCC 2 Mansour Ahani Appellant v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Attorney General of Canada Respondents
More informationSHELTER FROM THE STORM: A COMMENT ON SURESH V. CANADA (MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION) I. INTRODUCTION
SURESH V. CANADA {MINISTER OF CmZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION) 465 SHELTER FROM THE STORM: A COMMENT ON SURESH V. CANADA (MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION) PETER J. CARVER 0 I. INTRODUCTION When the Supreme
More informationLAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
INTRODUCTION Purpose and currency of checklist. This checklist is designed to be used with the CLIENT IDENTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION PROCEDURE (A-1) checklist. It is intended for use by immigration counsel
More informationThe Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (appellant) v. Thanh Tam Tran (respondent) (A ; 2015 FCA 237)
The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (appellant) v. Thanh Tam Tran (respondent) (A-531-14; 2015 FCA 237) Indexed As: Tran v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
More informationBill C-11, Balanced Refugee Reform Act
Bill C-11, Balanced Refugee Reform Act NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION LAW SECTION CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION May 2010 500-865 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1S 5S8 tel/tél : 613.237.2925 toll
More informationand THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Date: 20081106 Docket: IMM-2397-08 Citation: 2008 FC 1242 Toronto, Ontario, November 6, 2008 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes BETWEEN: JULIO ESCALONA PEREZ AND DENIS ALEXANDRA PEREZ DE ESCALONA
More informationConvention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Interim Report in follow-up to the review of Canada s Sixth Report August 2013 Introduction 1. On May 21 and 22,
More informationSASKATCHEWAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW UPDATE
SASKATCHEWAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW UPDATE Larry Seiferling, Q.C., Partner, McDougall Gauley LLP Angela Giroux, Associate, McDougall Gauley LLP (a) Introduction There are few, if any, issues that have arisen
More informationCoram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ. The following is the judgment delivered by The Court: I. Introduction [1] Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen,
More informationIndexed As: Iamkhong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al. Federal Court Noël, J. March 24, 2011.
Suwalee Iamkhong (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondents) (IMM-3693-10; 2011 FC 355) Indexed As: Iamkhong v.
More informationA Very Busy Year: A Brief Review of the Major Changes Made to Immigration and Refugee Law in By Chris Veeman
A Very Busy Year: A Brief Review of the Major Changes Made to Immigration and Refugee Law in 2012 2013 By Chris Veeman Veeman Law www.veemanlaw.com chris@veemanlaw.com The period from January 2012 to March
More informationCountry submission: Canada. 20 January 2014
CONSEIL CANADIEN POUR LES RÉFUGIÉS CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES Submission to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention for consideration in Guiding Principles on the right of anyone deprived of his
More informationState and Non-State Actors of Persecution in Central America
State and Non-State Actors of Persecution in Central America Presentation by Ross Pattee, Secretary, IARLJ Americas Chapter at the 11 th IARLJ World Conference, Athens, Greece November 29 to December 1,
More informationPP 3. Pre-removal Risk Assessment (PRRA)
PP 3 Pre-removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) Updates to chapter... 4 1. What this chapter is about... 5 2. Program objectives... 5 3. The Act and Regulations... 5 3.1. Forms required... 11 3.2. Letters Pre-Removal
More informationKanthasamy v. MCI [2015] SCJ No. 61. The Test for Compassion
Kanthasamy v. MCI [2015] SCJ No. 61 The Test for Compassion I. Overview: The Supreme Court of Canada fundamentally altered the decision making process of s. 25 applications for permanent residency by expanding
More informationINDEX. (All references are to section number)
(All references are to section number) CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES education 14.4 emerging trends 14.7 employment 14.3 housing 14.5 immigration inadmissibility 14.2 deemed rehabilitation
More informationAMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CANADA and BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION Appellants. and
CORAM: RICHARD C.J. DESJARDINS J.A. NOËL J.A. Date: 20081217 Docket: A-149-08 Citation: 2008 FCA 401 BETWEEN: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CANADA and BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION Appellants and
More informationENF 6. Review of reports under subsection A44(1)
ENF 6 Review of reports under subsection A44(1) Table of contents Updates to chapter... 4 1. What this chapter is about... 6 2. Program objectives... 6 3. The Act and Regulations... 6 3.1. Considerations...
More informationTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION. and A069 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Ottawa, Ontario, April 8, 2014 PRESENT: BETWEEN: The Honourable Madam Justice Strickland THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION and Date: 20140408 Docket: IMM-13216-12 Citation: 2014 FC 341 Applicant
More informationNote on the Cancellation of Refugee Status
Note on the Cancellation of Refugee Status Contents Page I. INTRODUCTION 2 II. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES 3 A. General considerations 3 B. General legal principles 3 C. Opening cancellation
More informationDecision adopted by the Committee against Torture at its forty-eighth session, 7 May 1 June 2012
United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment CAT/C/48/D/370/2009 Distr.: General 22 June 2012 English Original: French Committee against Torture
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Cal-terra Developments Ltd. v. Hunter, 2017 BCSC 1320 Date: 20170728 Docket: 15-4976 Registry: Victoria Re: Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996,
More informationApplications by the Minister for Cessation Under IRPA s. 108(1)(a) to (d) and the loss of permanent residence under IRPA s. 40.
It s The New Cessation Applications by the Minister for Cessation Under IRPA s. 108(1)(a) to (d) and the loss of permanent residence under IRPA s. 40.1(2) Canadian Bar Association National Immigration
More informationImmigration Act 2014 Article 8 ECHR
Immigration Enforcement Immigration Act 2014 Article 8 ECHR Presented by Criminality Policy Team 2) Aims and Objectives Aim to explain the new Article 8 provisions in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum
More informationMinisterial Briefing Note
Ministerial Briefing Note Fixing Canada s Refugee System Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, March 16th, 2016 Contents Inadmissibility... 3 a) Inadmissibility for Membership in a Group IRPA s.34(1)(f)...
More informationROZAS DEL SOLAR, PAOLA ZEVALLOS ZUNIGA, LUIS ZEVALLOS ROZAS, SOFIA ZEVALLOS ROZAS, MACARENA. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION.
Date: 20181114 Docket: IMM-2645-17 Citation: 2018 FC 1145 Toronto, Ontario, November 14, 2018 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Diner BETWEEN: ROZAS DEL SOLAR, PAOLA ZEVALLOS ZUNIGA, LUIS ZEVALLOS ROZAS,
More informationTHE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION - AN UPDATE
THE REFUGEE APPEAL DIVISION - AN UPDATE Ottawa Immigration Law Conference April 29 2016 D E S L O G E S. C A ORGANIZATION OF MEMORANDUM Overview statement: Summary of basis of claim, what you agree with
More informationJAIME CARRASCO VARELA. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION. Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on January 28, 2009.
Date: 20090506 Docket: A-210-08 Citation: 2009 FCA 145 CORAM: NOËL J.A. NADON J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: JAIME CARRASCO VARELA Appellant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent Heard
More informationSubmission on Bill C-18 Citizenship of Canada Act NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION LAW SECTION CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION
Submission on Bill C-18 Citizenship of Canada Act NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION LAW SECTION CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION November 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Submission on Bill C-18 Citizenship of Canada
More informationENF 6. Review of Reports under A44(1)
ENF 6 Review of Reports under A44(1) Updates to chapter... 3 1. What this chapter is about... 4 2. Program objectives... 4 3. The Act and Regulations... 4 3.1 Considerations... 5 3.2. Criminality R228(1)(a)...
More informationINDEX. [Current to release ] (All references are to section number)
[Current to release 2014 3] (All references are to section number) CRIMINAL INADMISSIBILITY CITIZENS AND PERMA- NENT RESIDENTS admissibility hearings 3.8 decision making process 3.8(a) loss of permanent
More informationREFUGEE PROTECTION CASE LAW THE BEST OF
REFUGEE PROTECTION CASE LAW THE BEST OF 2009-2010 CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION LAW CONFERENCE HALIFAX MAY 13 TH 15 TH, 2010 Mitchell GOLDBERG 1635 Sherbrooke West, Suite
More informationTable of Contents. CON-1 (Mental Disorder) (2013-3)
Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION... 1-1 1.1 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE... 1-1 (a) Pre-1992 Amendments... 1-1 (b) The Reform Movement... 1-4 (c) The Swain Decision... 1-6 (d) The 1992 Amendments: Part XX.1
More informationAPPLICATION TO CEASE REFUGEE PROTECTION - SEC.108. Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada XXXXX XXXXX
Immigration and Refugee Board Refugee Protection Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié Section de la protection des réfugiés Private Proceeding Applicant APPLICATION TO CEASE REFUGEE
More informationIMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT [FEDERAL]
PDF Version [Printer-friendly - ideal for printing entire document] IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT [FEDERAL] Published by As it read between e 28th, 2012 and e 28th, 2012 Updated To: Important:
More informationTO JR OR NOT TO JR? A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO ASSESSING THE MERITS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE IMMIGRATION CONTEXT. Last updated: November 2012
TO JR OR NOT TO JR? A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO ASSESSING THE MERITS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE IMMIGRATION CONTEXT Last updated: November 2012 Warren L. Creates, B.A., LL.B. and Jacqueline J. Bonisteel, M.A.,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Page: 1 SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: IRAC v. Privacy Commissioner & D.B.S. 2012 PESC 25 Date: 20120831 Docket: S1-GS-23775 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Island Regulatory and Appeal
More informationThe Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer RALPH PROPHÈTE. and REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Date: 20080312 Docket: IMM-3077-07 Citation: 2008 FC 331 Ottawa, Ontario, March 12, 2008 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer BETWEEN: RALPH PROPHÈTE and Applicant THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) NELL TOUSSAINT. and
S.C.C. File No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) BETWEEN: NELL TOUSSAINT Applicant Appellant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent Respondent
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Ministry of Attorney General and Toronto Star and Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2010 ONSC 991 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 34/09 DATE: 20100326 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL
More informationand REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT [1] This is an application for judicial review by the Minister pursuant to section 72 of the
Date: 20090205 Docket: IMM-5512-07 Citation: 2009 FC 121 Montréal, Quebec, February 5, 2009 PRESENT: The Honourable Maurice E. Lagacé BETWEEN: THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Applicant and
More informationAswatte (fiancé(e)s of refugees) Sri Lanka [2011] UKUT 0476 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JARVIS.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Aswatte (fiancé(e)s of refugees) Sri Lanka [2011] UKUT 0476 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 2 November 2011 Determination Promulgated
More informationMIN JUNG KIM JI HOON KIM. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20100630 Docket: IMM-5625-09 Citation: 2010 FC 720 Vancouver, British Columbia, June 30, 2010 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes BETWEEN: MIN JUNG KIM JI HOON
More informationUpdate on Cessation O T T A W A I M M I G R A T I O N L A W C O N F E R E N C E U P D A T E D T O J U N E
Update on Cessation O T T A W A I M M I G R A T I O N L A W C O N F E R E N C E U P D A T E D T O J U N E 2 0 1 5 Cessation (s. 108 IRPA) (a) voluntary re-availment of the protection of the country of
More informationCanadian soldiers are entitled to the rights and freedoms they fight to uphold.
Canadian soldiers are entitled to the rights and freedoms they fight to uphold. This report is a critical analysis Bill C-41, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments
More informationMigration Amendment (Complementary Protection) Bill 2009
Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection) Bill 2009 Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 28 September 2009 Queries regarding this submission should be directed
More informationChapter Eleven The Charter and the IRPA
Chapter Eleven The Charter and the IRPA Introduction The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) is called upon to consider constitutional questions in a variety of contexts. This chapter reviews the legislation
More informationLEYLA SMIRNOVA. and SKATE CANADA JURISDICTIONAL ORDER. Richard W. Pound, Q.C. Jurisdictional Arbitrator
SDRCC 16 0291 LEYLA SMIRNOVA (Claimant) and SKATE CANADA (Respondent) JURISDICTIONAL ORDER Richard W. Pound, Q.C. Jurisdictional Arbitrator Appearances: Laura Robinson for the Claimant Daphne Fedoruk,
More informationCED: An Overview of the Law
Immigration and Refugees Notes for III: Persons Who are Inadmissible to Canada III.1: Security Grounds and Human Rights Violations FN1. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 34(1)
More informationEvidence before Administrative Tribunals
Evidence before Administrative Tribunals The IRB Experience. Gordon Maynard Maynard Kischer Stojicevic 1. Introduction The three tribunals of the Immigration and Refugee Board are the Refugee Protection
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) NELL TOUSSAINT. and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) File Number: 34336 BETWEEN NELL TOUSSAINT Applicant Appellant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent Respondent
More informationCHANGES TO THE REFUGEE SYSTEM WHAT C-11 MEANS September 2010
CONSEIL CANADIEN POUR LES RÉFUGIÉS CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES CHANGES TO THE REFUGEE SYSTEM WHAT C-11 MEANS September 2010 WHAT HAS ALREADY CHANGED? Most of the changes to the Act will not be implemented
More informationChallenges to the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons Compliance with International Law
Challenges to the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons Compliance with International Law This paper was presented at Blackstone Chambers Asylum law seminar, 31March 2009 By Guy Goodwin-Gill 1.
More informationEvaluation of IRB s Case Scheduling Processes
Evaluation of IRB s Case Scheduling Processes December 2008 Prepared by for Corporate Planning and Management Practices Directorate CORPORATE PLANNING AND SERVICES BRANCH Table of Contents Executive Summary...1
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Weir s Construction Limited v. Warford (Estate), 2018 NLCA 5 Date: January 22, 2018 Docket: 201601H0092 BETWEEN: WEIR S CONSTRUCTION
More informationEMIR SONMEZ. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION JUDGMENT AND REASONS
Date: 20150116 Docket: IMM-5781-13 Citation: 2015 FC 56 Ottawa, Ontario, January 16, 2015 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Boswell BETWEEN: EMIR SONMEZ Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
More informationCONSOLIDATED GROUNDS IN THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT PERSONS IN NEED OF PROTECTION RISK TO LIFE
Legal Services CONSOLIDATED GROUNDS IN THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT RISK TO LIFE OR RISK OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT Legal Services Immigration and Refugee Board TABLE OF
More informationPermanent Residence Alternatives H and C By Robin Seligman, Barrister & Solicitor and Cheryl Robinson, Barrister and Solicitor
Workshop 3C CLE May 13, 2011 Permanent Residence Alternatives H and C By Robin Seligman, Barrister & Solicitor and Cheryl Robinson, Barrister and Solicitor The application of humanitarian and compassionate
More informationKlinko v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (T.D.)
Klinko v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (T.D.) Alexander Klinko, Lyudmyla Klinko, and Andriy Klinko (Appellants) v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Respondent) [2000] 3 F.C.
More informationGUIDE TO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION DIVISION
GUIDE TO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION DIVISION Legal Services Table of Contents About the Guide to Proceedings Before the Immigration Division ii, iii Notes and references..iv Chapter 1... POWERS
More informationTABLE OF CONTENTS. Foreword xix Preface xxi Introductory Note xxiii CHAPTER 1 THE ROLE OF APPELLATE TRIBUNALS 1
Foreword xix Preface xxi Introductory Note xxiii CHAPTER 1 THE ROLE OF APPELLATE TRIBUNALS 1 PART 1 Why Standards of Review? 2 PART 2 Why Review? 5 (a) The Error Correcting Role 5 (b) The Call for Universality
More informationInternational Migration: Security Concerns and Human Rights Standards. Canada Research Chair in International Migration Law University of Montreal
International Migration: Security Concerns and Human Rights Standards François Crépeau Canada Research Chair in International Migration Law University of Montreal 1 Part I. Increased protection for the
More informationJEGATHEESWARAN KULASEKARAM. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION JUDGMENT AND REASONS
Date: 20150326 Docket: IMM-6847-13 Citation: 2015 FC 384 Ottawa, Ontario, March 26, 2015 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan BETWEEN: JEGATHEESWARAN KULASEKARAM Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
More informationCha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1507 (CanLII)
Home > Federal > Federal Court of Canada > 2004 FC 1507 (CanLII) Français English Cha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1507 (CanLII) Date: 2004-10-29 Docket: IMM-2347-03 Parallel
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Wildlands League v. Ontario (Natural Resources and Forestry), 2016 ONCA 741 DATE: 20161011 DOCKET: C61016 BETWEEN Sharpe, LaForme and van Rensburg JJ.A. Wildlands
More informationGAUTAM CHANDIDAS, REKHA CHANDIDAS, KARAN CHANDIDAS, KUNAL CHANDIDAS, RHEA CHANDIDAS. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Ottawa, Ontario, March 8, 2013 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Kane BETWEEN: Date: 20130308 Docket: IMM-1748-12 Citation: 2013 FC 257 GAUTAM CHANDIDAS, REKHA CHANDIDAS, KARAN CHANDIDAS, KUNAL CHANDIDAS,
More informationCanadian Centre on Statelessness Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion
Canadian Centre on Statelessness Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion Joint Submission to the Human Rights Council at the 30 th Session of the Universal Periodic Review (Third Cycle, May 2018) Canada
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: West Vancouver Police Department v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2016 BCSC 934 Date: 20160525 Docket: S152619 Registry: Vancouver
More informationA SURVEY OF FISHERIES CASES COMMONLY HEARD IN THE FEDERAL COURT. By Brad M. Caldwell
A SURVEY OF FISHERIES CASES COMMONLY HEARD IN THE FEDERAL COURT By Brad M. Caldwell Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Fisheries Matters In rem claims pursuant to s. 22 Judicial Review pursuant to s. 18 and
More informationOur Ref: Criminal Law Committee /5 8 February 2013
Our Ref: Criminal Law Committee 2100339/5 8 February 2013 Research Director Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee Parliament House George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 By Post and Email to: lacsc@parliament.qld.gov.au
More informationDeportation and Article 8 ECHR. Matthew Fraser 3 October 2018
Deportation and Article 8 ECHR Matthew Fraser mfraser@landmarkchambers.co.uk 3 October 2018 Legal framework Immigration Act 1971 Section 3(5) of the Immigration Act 1971: A person who is not a British
More informationCANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES, CANADIAN COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, and JOHN DOE Applicants (Respondents) -and-
277 Registry No. SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) B E T W E E N : CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES, CANADIAN COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, and JOHN DOE Applicants
More informationReview of Administrative Decisions Involving Charter Rights: The Shortcomings of the SCC Decision in Doré
Review of Administrative Decisions Involving Charter Rights: The Shortcomings of the SCC Decision in Doré February 24, 2014, OTTAWA Distinct But Overlapping: Administrative Law and the Charter Over the
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520 DATE: 20150709 DOCKET: C59661 BETWEEN Laskin, Lauwers and Hourigan JJ.A.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bresson v.nova Scotia (Community Services), 2016 NSSC 64. v. Nova Scotia (Department of Community Service)
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bresson v.nova Scotia (Community Services), 2016 NSSC 64 Date: 20160118 Docket: SYD No. 443281 Registry: Sydney Between: Jainey Lee Bresson v. Nova Scotia (Department
More informationGUIDELINES ON INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION: Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
Distr. GENERAL HCR/GIP/03/05 4 September 2003 Original: ENGLISH GUIDELINES ON INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION: Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of
More informationGLORIA ARACELI AYALA SOSA, PEDRO LUIS MONGE AYALA SOSA and NELSON EDUARDO LINARES CRUZ. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Ottawa, Ontario, May 6, 2014 PRESENT: BETWEEN: The Honourable Madam Justice Kane GLORIA ARACELI AYALA SOSA, PEDRO LUIS MONGE AYALA SOSA and NELSON EDUARDO LINARES CRUZ Date: 20140506 Docket: IMM-4079-13
More informationSubmission to International Commission of Jurists ICJ Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights.
CONSEIL CANADIEN POUR LES RÉFUGIÉS CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES Submission to International Commission of Jurists ICJ Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights 25 April 2007
More informationREFUGEE CLAIMANTS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
REFUGEE CLAIMANTS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA // FAQs October 2018 bcrefugeehub.ca refugeehub@issbc.org @bcrefugeehub 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 // Making A Refugee Claim... 3 1. Who can make a claim for refugee
More informationFile No.: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE QUÉBEC COURT OF APPEAL) - and - THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE OF CANADA
File No.: 33313 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE QUÉBEC COURT OF APPEAL) BETWEEN: TIBERIU GAVRILA - and - Appellant (Applicant) THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE OF CANADA Respondent (Respondent)
More informationThe Code. for Crown Prosecutors
The Code for Crown Prosecutors January 2013 Introduction 1.1 The Code for Crown Prosecutors (the Code) is issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
1 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Shaw v. Phipps, 2012 ONCA 155 DATE: 20120313 DOCKET: C53665 Goudge, Armstrong and Lang JJ.A. BETWEEN Michael Shaw and Chief William Blair Appellants and Ronald Phipps
More informationRefugee case law toolkit: A starting place for practitioners
Refugee case law toolkit: A starting place for practitioners May 2017 Contents Contents... 2 1.0 Acknowledgements... 6 2.0 Introduction... 6 3.0 Acronym guide... 7 Part 1: Common errors to watch for...
More informationCONSOLIDATED GROUNDS IN THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
CONSOLIDATED GROUNDS IN THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT DANGER OF TORTURE Legal Services Immigration and Refugee Board May 15, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION...3 2. CANADIAN LEGISLATION
More informationFast and Efficient but not Fair Recommendations with respect to Bill C-11
Fast and Efficient but not Fair Recommendations with respect to Bill C-11 Amnesty International Canada s Brief to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration May 11, 2010 INTRODUCTION
More informationIMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT [FEDERAL]
PDF Version [Printer-friendly - ideal for printing entire document] IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT [FEDERAL] Published by Quickscribe Services Ltd. Updated To: [includes 2017, c. 26 amendments
More informationCanada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Nagra
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Nagra Between The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, applicant, and Harjinderpal Singh Nagra, respondent [1999] F.C.J. No. 1643 Court File No.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: British Columbia (Ministry of Justice) v. Maddock, 2015 BCSC 746 Date: 20150423 Docket: 14-3365 Registry: Victoria In the matter of the decisions of the
More informationIN BRIEF SECTION 1 OF THE CHARTER AND THE OAKES TEST
THE CHARTER AND THE OAKES TEST Learning Objectives To establish the importance of s. 1 in both ensuring and limiting our rights. To introduce students to the Oakes test and its important role in Canadian
More informationBail Amendment Bill 2012
Bail Amendment Bill 2012 4 May 2012 Attorney-General Bail Amendment Bill 2012 PCO15616 (v6.2) Our Ref: ATT395/171 1. I have reviewed this Bill for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
More informationPETER DOERKSEN BUECKERT DUSTIN CALEB BUECKERT. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Federal Court Cour fédérale Ottawa, Ontario, September 1, 2011 Date: 20110901 Docket: IMM-975-11 Citation: 2011 FC 1042 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Crampton BETWEEN: PETER DOERKSEN BUECKERT DUSTIN
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 9 October 2015 On 25 November 2015 Oral determination given following hearing. Before
IAC-FH-CK-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 9 October 2015 On 25 November 2015 Oral determination given following
More information