Landmark Cases
Groundbreaking Decisions in Canadian Refugee Law
Learn about the seminal cases that established protections and procedural rights for refugees and asylum seekers in Canada.
Understanding Landmark Cases
Canadian refugee law has been shaped by decisions from the Supreme Court and other courts. These landmark cases established fundamental protections and rights for refugees and asylum seekers. Understanding these decisions helps explain the principles that apply to refugee claims, appeals, and humanitarian applications.
Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration
[1985] 1 S.C.R. 177
Supreme Court of Canada
What Happened
Decided under the Immigration Act, 1976, before the Immigration and Refugee Board existed. The Court held that section 7 of the Charter protects everyone physically present in Canada, including refugee claimants, and that a procedure deciding a claim without an oral hearing breached the principles of fundamental justice.
Why It Matters
Guaranteed due process rights for all refugee claimants, regardless of immigration status. Established the principle that everyone has the right to a fair and impartial hearing when seeking protection in Canada.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward
[1993] 2 S.C.R. 689
Supreme Court of Canada
What Happened
Held that persecution by a non-state actor can found a claim, so state complicity is not required. The five Convention grounds themselves come from the Refugee Convention, not from this case.
Why It Matters
Set the presumption that a state can protect its own nationals, rebuttable only by clear and convincing evidence. Gave the three-category test for membership in a particular social group, and defined political opinion as any opinion on a matter in which the machinery of state, government and policy may be engaged.
Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[2002] 1 S.C.R. 3
Supreme Court of Canada
What Happened
Addressed deportation to a substantial risk of torture. The Court held that the Minister should generally decline to deport a person in that situation, and that the balancing required by section 7 of the Charter will generally preclude it.
Why It Matters
The Court did not shut the door completely: it left open the exceptional case, describing it as a possibility not excluded. It upheld the provision as constitutional and allowed the appeal on procedural fairness, ordering a new hearing. The case is often cited more absolutely than it was decided.
Febles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
2014 SCC 68, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 431
Supreme Court of Canada
What Happened
Concerned Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention, which excludes a person who has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge. Mr Febles had convictions for assault with a deadly weapon in the United States.
Why It Matters
Held that Article 1F(b) is not limited to fugitives from justice, and that having served the sentence, or evidence of rehabilitation or expiation, does not remove the exclusion. Article 1F(a), which covers war crimes and crimes against humanity, is a separate provision.
B010 v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
2015 SCC 58, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 704
Supreme Court of Canada
What Happened
Concerned inadmissibility for organized criminality under section 37(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and what counts as people smuggling.
Why It Matters
Held that section 37(1)(b) reaches those who act to obtain a financial or other material benefit in the context of transnational organized crime. Asylum seekers who help one another to reach safety, without such a benefit, are not caught by it.
Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
2015 SCC 61, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 909
Supreme Court of Canada
What Happened
Addressed the humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) review process for inadmissible immigrants, including refugees. The Court established that H&C relief requires consideration of the best interests of any affected children.
Why It Matters
Held that the words unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship come from ministerial guidelines and must not be treated as the legal test, because that would fetter the discretion section 25(1) confers. Where a child is affected, the best interests of that child must be identified, defined and given substantial weight.
Ezokola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
2013 SCC 40, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 678
Supreme Court of Canada
What Happened
Concerned complicity in international crimes under Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention, and how far responsibility extends to someone who held a role in a government that committed such crimes.
Why It Matters
Rejected guilt by association and passive acquiescence. Exclusion requires a voluntary, knowing and significant contribution to the group’s crime or criminal purpose.
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica
2016 FCA 93
Federal Court of Appeal
What Happened
Settled the standard the Refugee Appeal Division itself applies when it reviews a decision of the Refugee Protection Division. It is not a judicial review case.
Why It Matters
Held that the Refugee Appeal Division reviews the Refugee Protection Division on a correctness standard and carries out its own independent assessment of the record, owing no general deference. Deference is limited to the narrow cases where the Refugee Protection Division had a real advantage, such as some credibility findings made from hearing the witness.
How to Use These Cases
- •In Your Refugee Claim: These cases establish legal principles that may apply to your situation. Understanding precedent can help you present your case effectively.
- •With Your Lawyer: Discuss how landmark cases relate to your specific circumstances. Your lawyer can analyze whether precedent supports your claim.
- •Understanding Decisions: If your claim is rejected, these cases help explain the legal framework that applies to refugee determination in Canada.
- •Judicial Review: These precedents are cited in Judicial Review applications to challenge unfavorable decisions.
Understanding Case Law
These landmark decisions form the foundation of Canadian refugee law. For guidance on how case law applies to your specific circumstances, consult with a refugee lawyer or RCIC.
Find a Lawyer