2 total
Safe Third Country Agreement regulations upheld; s. 15 equality challenge remitted to Federal Court.
The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of s. 159.3 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, which designates the United States as a safe third country, rendering refugee claimants arriving at Canadian land ports of entry from the United States ineligible to have their claims considered in Canada.
The Court held that s. 159.3 is not ultra vires the IRPA, as the validity of a regulation is assessed at the time of promulgation.
The Court further held that s. 159.3 does not breach s. 7 of the Charter: while some effects on liberty and security of the person are causally connected to Canadian state action, the legislative scheme is neither overbroad nor grossly disproportionate given the availability of statutory safety valves that guard against real and not speculative risks of refoulement.
The s. 15 equality rights challenge, based on the disproportionate impact on women fearing gender-based persecution, was remitted to the Federal Court for determination on the merits.
Motion for a stay of removal granted pending judicial review of negative PRRA decision.
The applicant, a citizen of Colombia subject to a deportation order for serious criminality, brought a motion to stay her removal pending an application for leave and judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) decision.
The Court granted the stay, finding she met the tripartite test.
The underlying application raised serious questions about the PRRA officer's credibility and evidentiary findings regarding her fear of a paramilitary group.
The applicant would suffer irreparable harm if removed, as her application would become moot and she would lose the right to an effective remedy.
The balance of convenience favoured the applicant despite the public interest in executing removal orders.
