The appellant, a Convention refugee found inadmissible for serious criminality, appealed the dismissal of his application for judicial review of the Minister’s refusal to accede to a United Nations Human Rights Committee request to hold his removal in abeyance pending consideration of his communication.
The court held that the refusal was a pure exercise of Crown prerogative in the sphere of international relations, not a statutory decision under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and was therefore within the Superior Court’s concurrent jurisdiction and was justiciable because it directly affected an individual’s life and safety.
Applying reasonableness review, the court held that no reasons were required because the interim measures request was addressed by an international body to Canada, not to the appellant, and no domestic statute or settled practice imposed a duty to give reasons.
The court further held that the Minister had the relevant factual material before him, including submissions concerning the appellant’s mental health and risks on return, and that the refusal was not unreasonable in light of the domestic-law framework in Suresh governing the non-refoulement exception for dangerous refugees.
The appeal was dismissed, the respondent’s jurisdiction and justiciability arguments failed, no costs were ordered, and the removal order was stayed for 60 days.
