Safety Valves in Charter Analysis:A Quick Fix Rather Than a Structural Solution

Authors

Jamie Chai Yun Liew, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa

Abstract

A safety valve is a flap, lid or device that acts as a fail-safe. For those unfortunate to have experienced backflow into your home, a safety valve installed in a sewer line permits wastewater to exit while blocking unwanted backflow. It is a reliable and indispensable tool in this context. The legal world has adopted this term in constitutional analyses. This paper examines whether legal safety valves do provide relief. First, the paper provides an overview of how safety valves have been installed in the Supreme Court of Canada’s legal analyses. Then the paper provides a sober discussion of how this legal mechanism affects access to Charter protection at a practical level for vulnerable and marginalized persons, particularly in the immigration and refugee law context. Legal safety valves are the provisions or mechanisms in a legislative framework that courts point to as curing or diminishing any unconstitutional effects of an impugned provision or scheme. They often come in the form of alternative applications, exemptions, or an exercise of discretion. They are patchwork solutions and are not a good substitute to replacing a system that has significant implications for people subject to the law; in ideal situations, a more enduring and reliable solution could be crafted. They can be exercises of judicial or legislative power and have been referred to as “discretion, exemptions or escape clauses”. They have been found in section 7 or 12 Charter analyses. The paper asks us to return to the foundations of Charter analysis and ask what are permissible ways to cure unconstitutional legislative provisions or schemes? The paper argues there is little evidence legal safety valves do provide the necessary escape from the ambit of unconstitutional schemes and may only provide temporary solutions.

Citation Information

Liew, Jamie Chai Yun. "Safety Valves in Charter Analysis:A Quick Fix Rather Than a Structural Solution." The Supreme Court Law Review, Third Series: Osgoode's Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 5. (2026).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1002
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr-third-series/vol5/iss1/3

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

References

1 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 [hereinafter the "Charter"].

2 R. v. Hills, [2023] S.C.J. No. 2, 2023 SCC 2, at para. 123 (S.C.C.).

3 See for example, Obazughanmwen v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2023] F.C.J. No. 913, 2023 FCA 151, at para. 54 (F.C.A.).

4 See for example, Atawnah v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2016] F.C.J. No. 481, 2016 FCA 144, at para. 23 (F.C.A.).

5 [2023] S.C.J. No. 17, 2023 SCC 17 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "CCR"].

6 For more information about the Safe Third Country Agreement and its litigation history see CCR (S.C.C.) and Canadian Council for Refugees, "Safe Third Country", online: https://ccrweb.ca/en/safe-third-country.

7 CCR, at para. 10 (S.C.C.).

8 CCR, at para. 11 (S.C.C.).

9 CCR, at para. 71 (S.C.C.).

10 CCR, at para. 151 (S.C.C.).

11 An overview of all the safety valves in CCR will not be provided here but in my forthcoming research co-authored with other scholars we provide an extensive overview of the safety valves identified in CCR and assess whether they do provide relief or are viable alternatives.

12 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 [hereinafter the "IRPA"].

13 CCR, at para. 148 (S.C.C.).

14 CCR, at para. 77 (S.C.C.).

15 CCR, at para. 170 (S.C.C.).

16 CCR, at para. 170 (S.C.C.).

17 CCR, at para. 171 (S.C.C.).

18 Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, [2011] S.C.J. No.44, 2011 SCC 44 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "PHS"].

19 PHS, at paras. 1-3 (S.C.C.).

20 PHS, at para. 16 (S.C.C.).

21 PHS, at para. 3 (S.C.C.).

22 PHS, at paras. 85-96 (S.C.C.).

23 PHS, at paras. 85-96 (S.C.C.).

24 PHS, at paras. 112-114 (S.C.C.).

25 PHS, at paras. 112-113 (S.C.C.).

26 Alana Klein, "Section 7 of the Charter and the Principled Assignment of Legislative Jurisdiction" (2012) 57 S.C.L.R. (2d) 59, at 64. https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1232

27 Venus Sayed, "Safety Valves: A Band-Aid Solution to the Ills of Mandatory Minimums?" (2022) LLM Theses 57, at 25, see online: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/llm/57.

28 Venus Sayed, "Safety Valves: A Band-Aid Solution to the Ills of Mandatory Minimums?" (2022) LLM Theses 57, at 41, see online: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/llm/57.

29 Venus Sayed, "Safety Valves: A Band-Aid Solution to the Ills of Mandatory Minimums?" (2022) LLM Theses 57, at 41-43, see online: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/llm/57.

30 R. v. Nur, [2015] S.C.J. No. 15, 2015 SCC 15 (S.C.C.).

31 R. v. Nur, [2015] S.C.J. No. 15, 2015 SCC 15, at paras. 72-73 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kine.2015.09.023

32 R. v. Lloyd, [2016] S.C.J. No. 13, 2016 SCC 13 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27022-7_2

33 R. v. Lloyd, [2016] S.C.J. No. 13, 2016 SCC 13 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.12968/sece.2016.33.13

34 R. v. Lloyd, [2016] S.C.J. No. 13, 2016 SCC 13, at para. 36 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.12968/sece.2016.34.13

35 R. v. Lloyd, [2016] S.C.J. No. 13, 2016 SCC 13, at para. 36 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27022-7_2

36 R. v. Boudreault, [2018] S.C.J. No. 58, 2018 SCC 58 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1071/PVv2018n192p58

37 R. v. Morrison, [2019] S.C.J. No. 15, 2019 SCC 15, at para. 194 (S.C.C.).

38 R. v. Sharma, [2022] S.C.J. No. 39, 2022 SCC 39, at para. 244 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.5840/protosociology20223914

39 R. v. Bertrand Marchand, [2023] S.C.J. No. 26, 2023 SCC 26, at para. 108 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.9785/zkm-2023-260311

40 Venus Sayed, "Safety Valves: A Band-Aid Solution to the Ills of Mandatory Minimums?" (2022) LLM Theses 57, at 45-46, see online: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/llm/57.

41 Venus Sayed, "Safety Valves: A Band-Aid Solution to the Ills of Mandatory Minimums?" (2022) LLM Theses 57, at 40-41, see online: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/llm/57.

42 R. v. Nur, [2015] S.C.J. No. 15, 2015 SCC 15, at paras. 149-152 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.14321/nortafristud.15.2.0149

43 R. v. Nur, [2015] S.C.J. No. 15, 2015 SCC 15, at paras. 94-95 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1525/gfc.2015.15.4.94

44 R. v. Nur, [2015] S.C.J. No. 15, 2015 SCC 15, at paras. 94-95 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1525/gfc.2015.15.4.94

45 Venus Sayed, "Safety Valves: A Band-Aid Solution to the Ills of Mandatory Minimums?" (2022) LLM Theses 57, at 43, see online: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/llm/57.

46 Venus Sayed, "Safety Valves: A Band-Aid Solution to the Ills of Mandatory Minimums?" (2022) LLM Theses 57, at 43-44, see online: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/llm/57.

47 Venus Sayed, "Safety Valves: A Band-Aid Solution to the Ills of Mandatory Minimums?" (2022) LLM Theses 57, at 45, see online: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/llm/57.

48 For e.g.: Bhatia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2017] F.C.J. No. 1020, 2017 FC 1000 (F.C.); Kaur v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2017] F.C.J. No. 800, 2017 FC 757 (F.C.) and Braud v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2020] F.C.J. No. 97, 2020 FC 132 (F.C.), in all cases, where Gascon J. pointed to s. 25(1) H&C applications of the IRPA as an alternative for failed refugee claims. In Beros v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2019] F.C.J. No. 294, 2019 FC 325 (F.C.), judicial stays of removal were characterized as safety valves. In Paramananthalingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2017] F.C.J. No. 419, 2017 FC 236 (F.C.), s. 97 of IRPA was considered a safety valve. Ji v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2019] F.C.J. No. 1095, 2019 FC 1219 (F.C.) is one of many cases finding that H&C considerations are considered safety valves in the Immigration Appeal Division. In Choudhary v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.C.J. No. 583, 2008 FC 412 (F.C.), a pre-removal risk assessment is considered a safety valve.

49 Obazughanmwen v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2023] F.C.J. No. 913, 2023 FCA 151, at para. 54 (F.C.A.) citing B010 v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] S.C.J. No. 58, 2015 SCC 58, at para. 75 (S.C.C.); Febles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] S.C.J. No. 68, 2014 SCC 68, at para. 67 (S.C.C.); Moretto v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2019] F.C.J. No. 1194, 2019 FCA 261, at para. 48 (F.C.A.); Revell v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2019] F.C.J. No. 1195, 2019 FCA 262, at para. 38 (F.C.A.).

50 Revell v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2019] F.C.J. No. 1195, 2019 FCA 262, at para. 115 (F.C.A.).

51 Revell v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2019] F.C.J. No. 1195, 2019 FCA 262, at para. 117 (F.C.A.).

52 Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] S.C.J. No. 61, 2015 SCC 61 (S.C.C.).

53 Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] S.C.J. No. 61, 2015 SCC 61, at para. 90 (S.C.C.).

54 Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] S.C.J. No. 61, 2015 SCC 61, at para. 100 (S.C.C.).

55 Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] S.C.J. No. 61, 2015 SCC 61, at para. 63 (S.C.C.).

56 Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] S.C.J. No. 61, 2015 SCC 61, at para. 93 (S.C.C.).

57 Mason v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2023] S.C.J. No. 21, 2023 SCC 21 (S.C.C.).

58 Mason v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2023] S.C.J. No. 21, 2023 SCC 21, at para. 110 (S.C.C.).

59 Mason was implemented in Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Canadian Assn. of Refugee Lawyers, [2024] F.C.J. No. 677, 2024 FCA 69, at paras. 49-51 (F.C.A.).

60 Benjamin Perryman, "Adducing Social Science Evidence in Constitutional Cases" (2018-2019) 44 Queens L.J. 121.

61 Sonia Lawrence, "Expert-Tease: Advocacy, Ideology and Experience in Bedford and Bill C-36" (2015) 30:1 Cdn. J. of L. & Soc. 5, at 5. https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2015.3

62 Sonia Lawrence, "Expert-Tease: Advocacy, Ideology and Experience in Bedford and Bill C-36" (2015) 30:1 Cdn. J. of L. & Soc. 5, at 5. https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2015.3

63 Sonia Lawrence, "Expert-Tease: Advocacy, Ideology and Experience in Bedford and Bill C-36" (2015) 30:1 Cdn. J. of L. & Soc. 5, at 6. https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2015.3

64 Sonia Lawrence, "Expert-Tease: Advocacy, Ideology and Experience in Bedford and Bill C-36" (2015) 30:1 Cdn. J. of L. & Soc. 5, at 7. https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2015.3

65 Government of Canada, "Program delivery update: Pilot program to exempt permanent residence applicants in the family class or the spouse or common-law partner in Canada (SCLPC) class from paragraph R117(9)(d) or 125(1)(d) exclusion" (October 30, 2023), see online: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publicationsmanuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/permanent-residence/non-economic-classes/familyclass-spouse/pilot-exempt-r117-r125.html.

66 "Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement" (2004) C. Gaz. II, Vol. 138, No. 16, at 11.

67 De Guzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.C.J. No. 2119, 2005 FCA 436 (F.C.A.).

68 De Guzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.C.J. No. 2119, 2005 FCA 436, at paras. 45-52 (F.C.A.).

69 De Guzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.C.J. No. 2119, 2005 FCA 436, at para. 48 (F.C.A.).

70 De Guzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.C.J. No. 2119, 2005 FCA 436, at paras. 93-108 (F.C.A.).

71 De Guzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.C.J. No. 2119, 2005 FCA 436, at para. 49 (F.C.A.).

72 Jamie Liew, Prasanna Balasundaram & Jennifer Stone, "Troubling Trends in Canada's Immigration System Via the Excluded Family Member Regulation: A Survey of Jurisprudence and Lawyers" (2017) 26 J. of L. & Soc. Pol'y 112. https://doi.org/10.1149/2.026172if

73 Jamie Liew, Prasanna Balasundaram & Jennifer Stone, "Troubling Trends in Canada's Immigration System Via the Excluded Family Member Regulation: A Survey of Jurisprudence and Lawyers" (2017) 26 J. of L. & Soc. Pol'y 112. https://doi.org/10.60082/0829-3929.1258

74 Government of Canada, "Program delivery update: Pilot program to exempt permanent residence applicants in the family class or the spouse or common-law partner in Canada (SCLPC) class from paragraph R117(9)(d) or 125(1)(d) exclusion" (October 30, 2023), see online: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publicationsmanuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/permanent-residence/non-economic-classes/familyclass-spouse/pilot-exempt-r117-r125.html.

75 Alison Latimer, "Constitutional Conversations" (2019) 88 S.C.L.R. (2d) 231, at 231. https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1367

76 Alison Latimer, "Constitutional Conversations" (2019) 88 S.C.L.R. (2d) 231, at 247. https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1367

77 Peter W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada (5th ed., supplemented) (Looseleaf) (Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2007) §59.5, at 59-22.

78 Peter Hogg & Cara F. Zwibel, "The rule of law in the Supreme Court of Canada" (2005) University of Toronto Law Journal, at 718. https://doi.org/10.1353/tlj.2005.0016

79 Alison M. Latimer & Benjamin L. Berger, "A Plumber with Words: Seeking Constitutional Responsibility and an End to the Little Sisters Problem" (2022) 104 S.C.L.R. (2d) 104. https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1430

80 Alison M. Latimer & Benjamin L. Berger, "A Plumber with Words: Seeking Constitutional Responsibility and an End to the Little Sisters Problem" (2022) 104 S.C.L.R. (2d) 104, at 150. https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1430

81 Alison M. Latimer & Benjamin L. Berger, "A Plumber with Words: Seeking Constitutional Responsibility and an End to the Little Sisters Problem" (2022) 104 S.C.L.R. (2d) 104, at 160. https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1430