David Matas

The appellant, an Iranian citizen who later immigrated to Canada, brought a civil action in Ontario against the Islamic Republic of Iran for damages arising from his abduction, imprisonment, and torture by Iranian state agents in Iran.

Iran did not defend the action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the action, finding it was barred by the State Immunity Act.

The Court held that none of the statutory exceptions to state immunity applied, including the commercial activity and tort exceptions.

Furthermore, the Court concluded that neither Canada's treaty obligations nor customary international law required Canada to provide a civil remedy against a foreign state for torture committed abroad, and that the State Immunity Act did not violate section 7 of the Charter.

The appellants, Orthodox Jews, set up succahs on the balconies of their co-owned property to fulfill a religious obligation during the festival of Succot.

The respondent syndicate of co-owners requested their removal, citing a declaration of co-ownership that prohibited constructions on balconies.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the declaration infringed the appellants' freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter.

The Court established a subjective test for freedom of religion, requiring only that a claimant sincerely believe in a practice that has a nexus with religion.

The Court found that the impairment of the appellants' religious freedom was serious, while the intrusion on the respondent's property and security rights was minimal.

The Court also rejected the argument that the appellants had waived their religious rights by signing the declaration of co-ownership.

The appellant, a permanent resident, was ordered removed from Canada for misrepresenting his marital status on his application.

He appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division (I.A.D.) under s. 70(1)(b) of the Immigration Act, arguing that the I.A.D. should consider the potential foreign hardship he would face if removed to Cambodia.

The I.A.D. and lower courts held that foreign hardship could not be considered because the Minister had not yet determined the country of removal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the I.A.D. is entitled to consider potential foreign hardship under s. 70(1)(b) when deciding whether to quash or stay a removal order, provided that a likely country of removal has been established by the individual facing removal.