scholarly journals Reforming the Canadian Refugee Determination System

Refuge ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 110-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Collacott
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
Electoral Support ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
Effective Manner ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Determination System ◽  
Do So

If Canadian refugee policy is to serve interests of Canadians as well as those of genuine refugees in an effective manner, far more radical changes will be needed than have been attempted to date. They must include the introduction of robust safe third country designations, a review of the 1985 Singh decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, and possible withdrawal by Canada of its accession to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. Other measures should also be considered such as placing an annual limit on the intake of refugees from overseas combined with that of successful incountry asylum seekers as well as establishing provision for temporary refugee status in Canada in addition to permanent resettlement. Measures should be taken to return Canada to its role primarily as a resettlement country for refugees selected abroad and not one that accommodates large numbers of asylum seekers making claims on our territory. With strong public backing for major changes, political parties that oppose such reforms will do so at the risk of losing electoral support.

Canadian Exclusion Jurisprudence post-Febles

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Molly Joeck
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
Refugee Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
International Refugee Law

Abstract This article examines the state of Canadian refugee law since the decision of the Supreme Court in Febles v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) [2014] 3 SCR 431. Drawing upon an analysis of a set of decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board, the administrative tribunal tasked with refugee status determination in Canada, the article seeks to determine whether administrative decision makers are heeding the guidance of Febles when excluding asylum seekers from refugee protection on the basis of serious criminality pursuant to article 1F(b) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. In doing so, it examines the controversy around article 1F(b) since its inception across various jurisdictions and amongst academic commentators, situating Febles within that controversy in order to demonstrate that the Supreme Court’s reluctance to clearly set out the purpose underlying article 1F(b) is in step with a longstanding tendency to understand the provision as serving a gatekeeping function, that prevents criminalized non-citizens from obtaining membership in our society. It argues that by omitting to set out a clear and principled standard by which asylum seekers can be excluded from refugee protection pursuant to article 1F(b), the Supreme Court failed to live up to a thick understanding of the rule of law. It concludes by calling for a reassertion of the rule of law into exclusion decision making, both nationally and internationally, in order to ensure that the legitimacy of the international refugee law regime is maintained.

scholarly journals SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE SAME OLD CONSTITUTION*

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (2 & 3) ◽  
pp. 2005
Author(s):  
Ronalda Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Social Institution ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Political Debate ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Do So

The Reference re Same-Sex Marriage1 is not a major opinion on the rights of same-sex couples in Canada, but it is nonetheless an important and fascinating case. There are only a few lines that are about the “rights” of same-sex couples. Did the Supreme Court of Canada “duck” the issue? Was the Court carefully gauging how much or little political capital it had and making a political decision to say as little as possible on this topic? The Court certainly displayed strategic brilliance, but it did not do so in the name of avoiding the “political” hot topic of same-sex marriage. It is factually difficult to maintain the view that the Supreme Court of Canada is loath to enter into this political debate. It has been the lead social institution in Canada in terms of responding to the claims of gays and lesbians to equality in law,2 and it has never been shy of dealing with topics simply because they involve controversial political issues.3 Rather, the Court’s brilliance lies in its minimalist and almost weary tone. This approach had the effect of taking the wind out of the sails of those opposed to same-sex marriage: the same-sex advocates definitely win the constitutional race, but they do so because according to the Supreme Court, there is no provincial constitutional headwind that can stop them. In short, provinces can complain all they want about the federal position in favour of same-sex marriage, but the wedding will go on despite and over their objections to the ceremony.

scholarly journals You’re not gay enough: the experiences and challenges of LGBTQ refugees during the asylum determination process in Toronto

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison T. E. Holder
Keyword(s):  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
Legal Counsel ◽  
Social Actors ◽  
Determination Process ◽  
Refugee Claimants ◽  
The World ◽  
Determination System ◽  
Do So

From much of the previous literature, it has been assumed that the IRB refugee determination system is inherently unfair to LGBTQ claimants, and that it demands queer refugees disclose a great deal of intimate personal information to meet heteronormative markers of gayness. Although these experiences still occur for queer asylum seekers today, the participants in this research pointed towards a shift in the IRB claim process. Overall, the participants recognized that the system is made and maintained by those who view the world through a heteronormative lens. Ultimately, the research pointed towards the fact that claimants have adapted to meet the expectations of the IRB’s LGBTQ refugee determination system. Through the sharing of information amongst fellow claimants, service providers, and legal counsel, queer refugees have become outstanding social actors who have learned how to perform their ‘queerness’ to gain a positive IRB result that ensures their protection from their countries of origin. It is important to note that this does not mean that anyone who wishes to seek asylum in Canada can do so under the guise of LGBTQ identities. Instead, this category of refugees has always been and will remain valid, and claimants have learned to perform the aspects of their identity which meet the stereotypical demands of the IRB and other heteronormative Canadian systems. Key words: LGBTQ, LGBTQ refugees, LGBTQ asylum-seekers, refugee claimants, IRB, Canada, Toronto, immigration, SOGIE, social actors, heteronormative, waiting

scholarly journals “Third Parties” and Democracy 2.0

2015 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 253-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Léonid Sirota
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Political Process ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Regulatory Approach ◽  
Set Up

Although the Supreme Court of Canada has described freedom of political, and especially electoral, debate as the most important aspect of the protection of freedom of expression in Canada, no debate in Canadian society is so regulated as that which takes place during an electoral campaign. Parliament has set up—and the Supreme Court has embraced—an “egalitarian model” of elections, under which the amount of money participants in that debate can spend to make their views heard is strictly limited. “Third parties”―those participants in pre-electoral debate who are neither political parties nor candidates for office―are subject to especially strict expense limits. In addition to limiting the role of money in politics, this regulatory approach was intended to put political parties front and centre at election time. This article argues that changes since the development of the “egalitarian model” have undermined the assumptions behind it and necessitate its re-examination. On the one hand, since the 1970s, political parties have been increasingly abandoning their role as essential suppliers in the marketplace of ideas to the actors of civil society, such as NGOs, unions, and social movements. On the other hand, over the last few years, the development of new communication technologies and business models associated with “Web 2.0” has allowed those who wish to take part in pre-electoral debate to do so at minimal or no cost. This separation of spending and speech means that the current framework for regulating the pre-electoral participation of third parties is no longer sufficient to maintain political parties’ privileged position in pre-electoral debate. While the current regulatory framework may still have benefits in limiting (the appearance of) corruption that can result from the excessive influence of money on the political process, any attempts to expand it to limit the online participation of third parties must be resisted.

scholarly journals Redetermination of a Claim to Be a Convention Refugee; A Review of the Jurisprudence

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 609-643
Author(s):  
Roger Cantin
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Advisory Committee ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Judicial Interpretation ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
Determination Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Definition Of

The refugee determination process under the Immigration Act, 1976 comprises many steps which have been the subject of judicial interpretation. An individual claiming to be a “Convention refugee” in Canada will first be examined under oath with regard to his claim. The Refugee Status Advisory Committee will study the transcript of this examination. After obtaining the advice of the Committee, the Minister of Employment and Immigration will determine whether or not the claimant is a “Convention refugee”. Should this determination be negative, the person concerned will have the choice to apply to the Immigration Appeal Board for a redetermination of his claim. At this stage, the Board will grant an oral hearing to the applicant and render a decision thereafter if it is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he could prove that he is a “Convention refugee”. If no oral hearing is granted, the Board will determine that the applicant is not a “Convention refugee”. The Federal Court and the Supreme Court of Canada have had a considerable input in the interpretation of the provisions relating to this refugee determination process, including the wording of the definition of “Convention refugee”. This paper limits itself to a review of the decisions rendered by these courts.

scholarly journals The Eve Decision — A Common Law Perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 657-675 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward W. Keyserlingk
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Prince Edward Island ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Medical Procedures ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Mentally Disabled ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Parens Patriae ◽  
The Law ◽  
Do So

By its decision in the Eve case, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified and settled the law in at least two important respects. From now on, provincial statutes can only be used to authorize guardians to permit involuntary contraceptive sterilizations if their wording clearly and explicitly so provides. The Prince Edward Island statute in question did not do so. Secondly, though the Court's parens patriae jurisdiction is of unlimited scope and does extend to cases involving medical procedures, it cannot serve as the basis for authorizing non-therapeutic sterilizations. By ruling out the applicability of parens patriae, and by insisting that judges are not able to deal adequately with such cases, the Supreme Court may have strengthened the case for new legislation in this area. The writer argues that such legislation should provide for access to contraceptive sterilization for the mentally disabled, and the needed safeguards to protect those unable to consent or refuse from the imposition of sterilization in the interests of parties other than themselves.

Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc.

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (4) ◽  
pp. 727-733 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Daskal
Keyword(s):  
Information Technology ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Entry Point ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Trade Secrets ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
A Company ◽  
Do So

In Google v. Equustek, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered Google to delist all websites used by Datalink, a company that stole trade secrets from Equustek, a Canada-based information technology company. Google had agreed to do so in part, but with respect to searches that originated from google.ca only, the default browser for those in Canada. Equustek however, argued the takedowns needed to be global in order to be effective. It thus sought an injunction ordering Google to delist the allegedly infringing websites from all of Google's search engines—whether accessed from google.ca, google.com, or any other entry point. Google objected. The Canadian Supreme Court, along with the two lower Canadian courts that considered the issue, sided with Equustek (para. 54). The ruling sets up a potential showdown between Canadian and U.S. law and raises critically important questions about the appropriate geographic and substantive scope of takedown orders, the future of free speech online, and the role of intermediaries such as Google in preventing economic and other harms.

scholarly journals The Rise and Fall of Plaintiff-Friendly Causation

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vaughan Black
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Do So

Starting about a generation ago, Canadian courts altered the rules governing causation to make them more plaintiff-friendly. However, these changes came to be regarded as misguided. In the 2012 decision Clements v. Clements, the Supreme Court of Canada modified the doctrine, reversing the plaintiff-friendly trend that had defined the law of causation for decades. This article will explore how Clements effectively curtailed the test of causation. It will do so in part by examining the impact it has had on the lower courts in subsequent years.

scholarly journals “They didn’t treat me as a Gypsy”: Romani Refugees in Toronto

Refuge ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 54-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia Levine-Rasky
Keyword(s):  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Hate Crime ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
Refugee Claimants ◽  
Determination System ◽  
Meaning Of Home

With organized hate crime and institutionalized discrimination, thousands of European Roma have fled to Canada, where they claim refugee status. Their arrival coincided with far-ranging reforms to the refugee determination system in 2012–13 in addition to some actions aimed specifically at the Roma. Against this backdrop, former and current Romani refugee claimants substantiate the experience of migration and settlement, beginning with the first moments after arrival, to the tasks of finding housing and work. Agency and resilience are evinced, despite the government’s multiple instruments used against asylum-seekers. Romani refugees’ lives show how, for transnational groups, belongingness is always contested and the meaning of home is always nuanced.

scholarly journals You’re not gay enough: the experiences and challenges of LGBTQ refugees during the asylum determination process in Toronto

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison T. E. Holder
Keyword(s):  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
Legal Counsel ◽  
Social Actors ◽  
Determination Process ◽  
Refugee Claimants ◽  
The World ◽  
Determination System ◽  
Do So

From much of the previous literature, it has been assumed that the IRB refugee determination system is inherently unfair to LGBTQ claimants, and that it demands queer refugees disclose a great deal of intimate personal information to meet heteronormative markers of gayness. Although these experiences still occur for queer asylum seekers today, the participants in this research pointed towards a shift in the IRB claim process. Overall, the participants recognized that the system is made and maintained by those who view the world through a heteronormative lens. Ultimately, the research pointed towards the fact that claimants have adapted to meet the expectations of the IRB’s LGBTQ refugee determination system. Through the sharing of information amongst fellow claimants, service providers, and legal counsel, queer refugees have become outstanding social actors who have learned how to perform their ‘queerness’ to gain a positive IRB result that ensures their protection from their countries of origin. It is important to note that this does not mean that anyone who wishes to seek asylum in Canada can do so under the guise of LGBTQ identities. Instead, this category of refugees has always been and will remain valid, and claimants have learned to perform the aspects of their identity which meet the stereotypical demands of the IRB and other heteronormative Canadian systems. Key words: LGBTQ, LGBTQ refugees, LGBTQ asylum-seekers, refugee claimants, IRB, Canada, Toronto, immigration, SOGIE, social actors, heteronormative, waiting

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document