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.
Judicial review of visa refusal dismissed based on contradictory military service evidence.
The applicants, a family of Syrian refugees living in Lebanon, applied for permanent residence in Canada.
The Principal Applicant claimed to have deserted the Syrian military after being ordered to fire a tank on civilians.
The visa officer refused the application, finding the Principal Applicant's evidence about his military training to be contradictory and not credible, leaving the officer unsatisfied that the Principal Applicant was not inadmissible.
The applicants applied for judicial review.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, holding that the officer's credibility findings regarding the contradictory statements about tank training were reasonable, and that the officer was not obliged to assess other risk factors once admissibility was not established.
