3 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.
Appeal dismissed decision
The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of assault, arguing that the trial was unfair due to numerous judicial interventions, that the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons, and that the trial judge subjected his evidence to a greater degree of scrutiny than that of the complainant.
The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's interventions were necessary for clarity and did not indicate bias, that the reasons were sufficiently detailed for appellate review, and that there was no evidence of uneven scrutiny of the appellant's and complainant's evidence.
Application for disclosure in extradition proceedings dismissed as premature and outside the extradition judge's jurisdiction.
The applicant, wanted in the United States for murder, sought a disclosure order against the Attorney General of Canada for information regarding the United States' involvement in his prior prosecution and conviction for the same murder in Jordan.
The applicant hoped to use this information to argue double jeopardy, abuse of process, and a violation of s. 7 of the Charter.
The court dismissed the application, holding that it was premature and that the extradition judge lacked jurisdiction to order disclosure from foreign authorities.
The court noted that double jeopardy issues and related disclosure requests are properly within the purview of the Minister of Justice during the surrender phase of the extradition process.
