6 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.
Motions for documentary production at the leave stage dismissed; extensions of time granted.
The applicants in two related applications for leave and judicial review brought motions in writing for documentary production under Rule 14(2) of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules and for extensions of time to perfect their leave materials.
The underlying applications sought mandamus and prohibition concerning delays in processing permanent residence applications due to ongoing admissibility reviews.
The Federal Court dismissed the document production requests, finding the documents were not necessary for the disposition of the leave applications, though they might be relevant later.
The Court granted the requested 30-day extensions of time and ordered the matters to be considered concurrently by the same judge.
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.
Tribunal issues procedural orders on consent regarding mediation of transit accessibility applications.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed applications against three municipalities alleging that the failure to call out all stops on municipal transit buses is discriminatory.
At a case conference, the municipalities provided updates on the implementation of automated stop announcement systems.
The Tribunal issued consent orders granting intervenor status to the respective transit unions and setting a schedule for the parties to discuss resolution and potentially engage in Tribunal mediation.
Application against employer dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; application against union deferred pending grievance arbitration.
The applicant filed two human rights applications against her former employer and her union.
The employer requested dismissal on the basis that the original complaint was dismissed by the Commission and not continued under section 53 of the Code.
The union requested dismissal or deferral pending an ongoing grievance arbitration regarding the applicant's termination.
The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer for lack of jurisdiction, as the complaint was not a 'continued' complaint.
The Tribunal deferred the application against the union pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration, finding it fair, just, and expeditious to avoid concurrent proceedings on the same issues.
