Immigration Law - SCC

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of s. 3 of Quebec's Reduced Contribution Regulation, which excluded refugee claimants from eligibility for subsidized childcare.

The majority found the provision created an adverse impact distinction based on sex and on refugee claimant status (an analogous ground under s. 15(1) of the Charter), and that this distinction was discriminatory as it reinforced disadvantage.

The infringement was not justified under s. 1.

The Court read refugee claimants into s. 3 of the Regulation as an eligible category.

One justice dissented, concluding neither sex-based nor refugee-claimant-status-based discrimination was established.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed Ms. Pepa’s appeal from Federal Court of Appeal and Federal Court judgments that upheld an Immigration Appeal Division ruling denying jurisdiction under s. 63(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

A majority held the IAD’s interpretation was unreasonable and concluded the only reasonable interpretation is that visa-holder status for this appeal right is assessed at the time of arrival in Canada, then remitted the matter to the IAD for determination of the removal-order appeal.

Rowe J. agreed the decision was unreasonable but would have remitted without declaring a single reasonable interpretation, while Côté and O’Bonsawin JJ. would have dismissed the appeal.

Two foreign nationals were found inadmissible on security grounds under s. 34(1)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for engaging in acts of violence, without any alleged link to national security or the security of Canada.

The administrative tribunals interpreted s. 34(1)(e) as not requiring such a nexus.

Applying the Vavilov reasonableness review framework, the Supreme Court held that the administrative decisions were unreasonable for failing to address critical points of statutory context, the broad consequences of the interpretation, and Canada's non-refoulement obligations under the Refugee Convention.

The Court held that the only reasonable interpretation of s. 34(1)(e) requires a nexus between the relevant acts of violence and national security or the security of Canada.

Appeals allowed and administrative decisions quashed.

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.

Landmark decision reforming the framework for judicial review of administrative decisions.

The Court established a presumption that reasonableness is the applicable standard of review, rebuttable where the legislature has indicated a different standard (including by providing a statutory appeal mechanism) or where the rule of law requires correctness review on constitutional questions, general questions of central legal importance, or jurisdictional boundaries between administrative bodies.

The Court also provided extensive guidance on conducting reasonableness review.

On the merits, the Registrar's decision to cancel the respondent's citizenship certificate was found unreasonable, as the statutory exception denying citizenship by birth to children of foreign government employees was intended to apply only to individuals whose parents had been granted diplomatic privileges and immunities.

An immigration detainee applied for habeas corpus after 13 months in immigration detention, challenging the legality of his detention on the grounds that it was lengthy and of indeterminate duration and was being served in inappropriate maximum-security lockdown conditions, both in alleged violation of ss. 7 and 9 of the Charter.

The chambers judge declined jurisdiction on the basis that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provided a complete, comprehensive and expert statutory scheme at least as broad and advantageous as habeas corpus (the Peiroo exception).

The majority of the Supreme Court held that the Peiroo exception does not bar habeas corpus applications in all immigration matters; rather, a court must examine whether the statutory scheme is as broad and advantageous as habeas corpus with respect to the specific grounds raised.

The IRPA scheme fell short in three ways regarding lengthy, indeterminate detention: the onus on detainees is less advantageous; the scope of federal court review is narrower than superior court review on habeas corpus; and the IRPA offers a less timely remedy.

The appeal was dismissed, with Abella J. dissenting on the basis that the IRPA scheme, properly interpreted, provides review at least as broad and advantageous as habeas corpus.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed a ministerial referral for an admissibility hearing under s. 36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

It held that a conditional sentence is not a 'term of imprisonment' for the serious criminality threshold based on an imposed sentence.

It also held that the 'maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years' must be assessed based on the law at the time the offence was committed, not at the time of the admissibility determination.

The matter was remitted to a different delegate for redetermination on a correct legal interpretation.

The appellant challenged the refusal of humanitarian and compassionate relief under s. 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act after unsuccessful refugee and risk-assessment proceedings.

The majority held that the officer unreasonably constrained discretion by treating 'unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship' as rigid legal thresholds rather than descriptive guidance.

The reasons emphasized holistic assessment, including mental health evidence, discrimination risk evidence, and the best interests of a directly affected child.

The appeal was allowed, the officer’s decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration.

A dissent would have upheld the refusal as reasonable under a stringent but flexible exceptional-relief framework.

The Court allowed the appeals and held that former section 117 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was overbroad under section 7 of the Charter.

It captured humanitarian aid, mutual aid among asylum-seekers, and assistance to family members, which fell outside Parliament’s objective of targeting organized people smuggling.

Attorney General consent to prosecute did not cure the constitutional defect.

The Court read down the former provision to exclude those protected categories and remitted the charges for trial.

Consolidated immigration appeals considered whether inadmissibility for people smuggling under s. 37(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act captures all assistance to undocumented migrants or is limited by organized transnational criminality and material benefit.

The Court held the provision applies only where conduct furthers illegal entry for direct or indirect financial or other material benefit in the context of transnational organized crime.

Humanitarian and mutual aid, including assistance among asylum-seekers in collective flight to safety, does not itself constitute people smuggling under this provision.

The prior inadmissibility determinations were based on an unreasonable statutory interpretation and were remitted for reconsideration on the proper legal test.

The appeal addressed exclusion from refugee protection under art. 1F(a) for alleged complicity in crimes against humanity by a state official.

The Court rejected guilt by association and held that exclusion requires serious reasons for considering the claimant voluntarily made a knowing and significant contribution to the group’s crime or criminal purpose.

It clarified that passive acquiescence or mere rank is insufficient, and that analysis must remain individualized and contextual.

The matter was remitted to a new panel for redetermination under the refined contribution-based test.

The Court dismissed an appeal challenging a refusal of ministerial relief from inadmissibility under s. 34(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

It held that reasonableness is the applicable standard of review for this discretionary decision and accepted an interpretation of national interest focused mainly on national security and public safety, while not excluding other relevant factors.

The Court found the Minister’s reasons intelligible and justified on the evidentiary record, including sustained contact with an organization found to have engaged in terrorism and credibility concerns.

It further held that procedural fairness was satisfied and any legitimate expectations from published guidelines were met.

The Minister’s decision was allowed to stand.

The appellant, a non-citizen convicted of drug offences, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment pursuant to a joint submission.

Neither counsel nor the Crown had advised the sentencing judge that a two-year sentence would strip the appellant of his right to appeal a removal order under the IRPA.

The Supreme Court held that collateral immigration consequences are a relevant factor in sentencing, flowing from principles of individualization and parity, but must not be allowed to skew the sentencing process or produce artificial sentences.

Since the Crown conceded the sentence should be reduced by one day and both sentences fell within the fit range, the Court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to two years less a day.