Equality Rights and the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement

Authors

Sharryn J. Aiken, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University
Colin Grey, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University

Abstract

Under the Canada-United States Safe Third Country Agreement (“STCA”), Canadian immigration officials return refugee protection claimants arriving from the United States to have their claims determined in that country, and vice versa. This paper tries to tease out the equality rights arguments under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms likely to be advanced in an ongoing constitutional challenge to the STCA and its implementing regulations. The paper briefly explores why equality rights challenges have often been given short shrift in cases involving “migration control”. We argue such cursory treatment is inappropriate in the challenge to the STCA given legal constraints flowing from international refugee law, which include obligations of non-discrimination. We then turn to the domestic jurisprudence under section 15 of the Charter. After delving into the issues that may arise in the litigation due to the chronic uncertainty that afflicts equality rights jurisprudence in Canada, we explore doctrinal questions arising under each of the two steps in the test for applying section 15. We end by proposing a more coherent approach to understanding the meaning of “substantive equality” in refugee law.

Citation Information

Aiken, Sharryn J. and Grey, Colin. "Equality Rights and the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement." The Supreme Court Law Review, Third Series: Osgoode's Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 5. (2026).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1004
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr-third-series/vol5/iss1/5

Creative Commons License

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

References

1 Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America for cooperation in the examination of refugee status claims from nationals of third countries, December 5, 2002, Can. T.S. 2004 No. 2 [hereinafter "STCA"]. A concise history of the STCA is found in Philippe Gagnon, Robert Mason & Madalina Chesoi, "Overview of the Canada-United States Safe Third Country Agreement", Publication No. 2020-70-E (Ottawa: Library of Parliament, 2021; revised 2023), at s. 3.1; see also Muzaffar Chishti & Julia Gelatt, "Roxham Road Meets a Dead End? U.S.-Canada Safe Third Country Agreement Is Revised", Migration Policy Institute (27 April 2023).

2 Efrat Arbel & Alletta Brenner, Bordering on Failure: Canada-U.S. Border Policy and the Politics of Refugee Exclusion (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Immigration and Refugee Law Clinical Program, 2013), at 87-89; Muzaffar Chishti & Julia Gelatt, "Roxham Road Meets a Dead End? U.S.-Canada Safe Third Country Agreement Is Revised", Migration Policy Institute (27 April 2023). This historic pattern may change, with reported growing numbers of persons crossing irregularly from Canada into the United States: Luis Ferré-Sadurní, "Migrants Face Cold, Perilous Crossing From Canada to New York", New York Times (February 11, 2024).

3 The preamble to the Agreement refers to "burden-" or "responsibility-sharing" three times: STCA, preamble.

4 See Michelle Foster, "Responsibility Sharing or Shifting? 'Safe' Third Countries and International Law" (2008) 25:2 Refuge 64. https://doi.org/10.25071/1920-7336.26032

5 Audrey Macklin, "Disappearing Refugees: Reflections on the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement" (2005) 36 Colum. Hum. Rts. L Rev. 365; Andrew F. Moore, "Unsafe in America: A Review of the U.S.-Canada Safe Third Country Agreement" (2007) 47:2 Santa Clara L. Rev. 201; Efrat Arbel & Alletta Brenner, Bordering on Failure: Canada-U.S. Border Policy and the Politics of Refugee Exclusion (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Immigration and Refugee Law Clinical Program, 2013), at 66; Michael Bossin & Laïla Demirdache, "Safe Third Country Litigation: Concealing Deficiencies in the U.S. Asylum System" (2023)

7 PKI Global Justice Journal 6. For work from advocacy groups, see Canadian Council for Refugees & Amnesty International, Contesting the Designation of the US as a Safe Third Country (Montreal: Canadian Council for Refugees, 2017).

6 [2023] S.C.J. No. 17, 2023 SCC 17 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1080/14432471.2023.2202417

7 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"], s. 7.

8 The STCA is implemented through ss. 101(1)(e) & 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 [hereinafter "IRPA"] and ss. 159.1-159.7 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [hereinafter "IRPR"]. The STCA together with its implementing legislation (both the IRPA and the IRPR) will be referred to as the "STCA regime".

9 Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2023] S.C.J. No. 17, 2023 SCC 17, at para. 163 (S.C.C.).

10 For discussion of the s. 7 case law, see Catherine Dauvergne, "How the Charter Has Failed Non-citizens in Canada: Reviewing Thirty Years of Supreme Court of Canada Jurisprudence" (2013) 58:3 McGill L.J. 663, at 680-684, 694 & 699-700 https://doi.org/10.7202/1018393ar; Colin Grey, "Thinkable: The Charter and Refugee Law after B010 and Appulonappa" (2016) 76 S.C.L.R. (2d) 111 https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1331

Gerald Heckman, "Revisiting the application of Section 7 of the 'Charter' in Immigration and Refugee Protection" (2017) 68 U.N.B. L.J. 312; Joshua Blum, "The Chiarelli Doctrine: Immigration Exceptionalism and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" (2021) 54:1 U.B.C. L. Rev. 1.

11 Charter, s. 15.

12 Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), [2020] F.C.J. No. 795, 2020 FC 770, at paras. 151-153 (F.C.).

13 Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), [2020] F.C.J. No. 795, 2020 FC 770, at para. 154 (F.C.); Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Canadian Council for Refugees, [2021] F.C.J. No. 322, 2021 FCA 72, at para. 173 (F.C.A.).

14 Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2023] S.C.J. No. 17, 2023 SCC 17, at para. 179 (S.C.C.).

15 Y.Z. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.C.J. No. 880, 2015 FC 892 (F.C.)

Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care v. Canada (Attorney General), [2014] F.C.J. No. 679, 2014 FC 651 (F.C.). The Supreme Court's first important s. 15 case involved a Charter challenge brought by a non-citizen. It did not relate to migration control as such, but discrimination against a permanent resident whose right to remain in Canada was not in question: Law Society of British Columbia v. Andrews, [1989] S.C.J. No. 6, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143 (S.C.C.).

16 Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Chiarelli, [1992] S.C.J. No. 27, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711, at para. 32 (S.C.C.); Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] S.C.J. No. 9, 2007 SCC 9, at paras. 129-132 (S.C.C.). At the Federal Court of Appeal, see Toussaint v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] F.C.J. No. 984, 2011 FCA 213, at paras. 89-111 (F.C.A.); Mvana c. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration), [2024] A.C.F. no 503, 2024 CAF 49, at para. 10 (F.C.A.). At Federal Court, see Huynh v. Canada, [1994] F.C.J. No. 1776, [1995] 1 F.C. 633, at paras. 57-63 (F.C.T.D.); Chaudhry v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 297, [1999] 3 F.C. 3, at paras. 48-49 (F.C.T.D.); Gonzalez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] F.C.J. No. 1592, 2006 FC 1274, at paras. 50-51 (F.C.); Dufour v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.C.J. No. 588, 2012 FC 580, at para. 46 (F.C.).

17 Donald J. Galloway, "Immigration, Xenophobia, and Equality Eights" (2019) Dal. L.J. 17, at 28 ("Where the legislative purpose underlying a measure is that of regulating immigration, this will be sufficient to short circuit any further inquiry."). The lengthy reasons given in Toussaint are an exception: Toussaint v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] F.C.J. No. 984, 2011 FCA 213, at paras. 89-111 (F.C.A.).

18 Second Supplementary Affidavit of Karen Musalo, December 11, 2023, in Applicants' Supplementary Record for s. 15 Re-Determination, Vol. 1, CCR et al v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Court File Nos. IMM-2977-17, IMM-775-17, and IMM-2229-17, at paras. 42-44.

19 Second Supplementary Affidavit of Karen Musalo, December 11, 2023, in Applicants' Supplementary Record for s. 15 Re-Determination, Vol. 1, CCR et al v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Court File Nos. IMM-2977-17, IMM-775-17, and IMM-2229-17, at paras. 45-47.

20 Second Supplementary Affidavit of Anwen Hughes, December 15, 2023, in Applicants' Supplementary Record for s. 15 Re-Determination, Vol. 2, CCR et al v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Court File Nos. IMM-2977-17, IMM-775-17, and IMM -2229-17, at paras. 26-29.

21 July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 137 (entered into force April 22, 1954, accession by Canada June 4, 1969). The 1951 Convention was subsequently modified by the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, October 4, 1967, 606 U.N.T.S. 267 (entered into force October 4, 1967, accession by Canada June 4, 1969). Subsequent references to the "Refugee Convention" refer to both instruments, read together.

22 Second Supplementary Affidavit of Karen Musalo, December 11, 2023, in Applicants' Supplementary Record for s. 15 Re-Determination, Vol. 1, CCR et al v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Court File Nos. IMM-2977-17, IMM-775-17, and IMM -2229-17, at para. 6.

23 See, e.g., Supplemental Affidavit of Kay Hailbronner, in Respondents' Supplementary Record for s. 15 Re-Determination, CCR et al v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Court File Nos. IMM-2977-17, IMM-775-17, and IMM -2229-17, at paras. 189-192 (on the one-year filing deadline) and at paras. 193-208 (on detention); Supplemental Affidavit of Stephen Yale-Loehr in Respondents' Supplementary Record for s. 15 Re-Determination, CCR et al v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Court File Nos. IMM-2977-17, IMM-775-17, and IMM -2229-17, at paras. 189-192 (on the one-year filing deadline) and at paras. 156-226 (on detention).

24 Jonnette Watson Hamilton & Jennifer Koshan, "Adverse Impact: The Supreme Court's Approach to Adverse Effects Discrimination under Section 15 of the Charter" (2015) 19:2 Rev. Const. Studies 191, at 196.

25 See Benjamin Perryman, "Proving Discrimination: Evidentiary Barriers and Section 15(1) of the Charter" (2023) 114 S.C.L.R. (2d) 93 https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4570775

Ariel Weaver & Jessica Orkin, "Demonstrating Discrimination: Judicial Notice, Legislative and Social Framework Facts and the Politics of Intervention" (2023) 114 S.C.L.R. (2d) 111; and Raj Mangat, "Interveners, Public Interest Litigation and Social Context: Advancing Equality Rights on Uneven Terrain" (2023) 114 S.C.L.R. (2d) 135. after the s. 15 claim had been dismissed by Pratte J.A. at the Federal Court of Appeal: Chiarelli v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] F.C.J. No. 157, [1990] 2 F.C. 299, at paras. 13-14 & 19 (F.C.A.).

27 Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Chiarelli, [1992] S.C.J. No. 27, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711, at para. 32 (S.C.C.).

28 Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] S.C.J. No. 9, 2007 SCC 9, at para. 129 (S.C.C.). The Court went on to suggest that certain treatment might be discriminatory if "no longer related, in effect or purpose, to the goal of deportation" (at para. 130). See also Lavoie v. Canada, [2002] S.C.J. No. 24, 2002 SCC 23, at para. 44 (S.C.C.).

29 See most recently Mvana c. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration), [2024] A.C.F. no 503, 2024 CAF 49, at para. 10 (F.C.A.), as well as other references in note 16, above.

30 Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Chiarelli, [1992] S.C.J. No. 27, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711, at para. 24 (S.C.C.). Even though they are distinct lines of reasoning, the courts often - perhaps most of the time - rely on both together.

31 Justice Sopinka cites the following cases for this proposition: R. v. Governor of Pentonville Prison, [1973] 2 All E.R. 741, [1974] A.C. 18 (C.A.); Prata v. Minister of Manpower and Immigration, [1976] S.C.J. No. 38, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 376 (S.C.C.). He might also have cited the much older Attorney General v. Cain, [1906] J.C.J. No. 2, [1906] A.C. 542 (P.C.).

32 Audrey Macklin, "The Inside-Out Constitution" in Jacco Bomhoff, David Dyzenhaus & Thomas Poole, eds., The Double-Facing Constitution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020) 243, at 246. For other discussions of immigration exceptionalism in Canada, see Joshua Blum, "The Chiarelli Doctrine: Immigration Exceptionalism and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" (2021) 54:1 U.B.C. L. Rev. 1

Jared Will, "Sidestepping the Charter, Again: Muting the Right to Habeas Corpus in Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Chhina" (2021) 100 S.C.L.R. (2d) 143, at 145-147. The "immigration exceptionalism" label originated in American scholarship: see David S. Rubenstein & Pratheepan Gulasekaram, "Immigration Exceptionalism" (2017) 111:3 Nw U.L. Rev. 583.

33 Again, see most recently Mvana c. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration), [2024] A.C.F. no 503, 2024 CAF 49, at para. 10 (F.C.A.).

34 Joshua Blum, "The Chiarelli Doctrine: Immigration Exceptionalism and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" (2021) 54:1 U.B.C. L. Rev. 1, at 43.

35 Donald J. Galloway, "Immigration and Xenophobia: Joining the Dots" in Michael J. Carpenter, Melissa Kelly & Oliver Schmidtke, eds., Borders and Migration: The Canadian Experience in Comparative Perspective (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 2023), at 181. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780776638072-009

36 Law Society of British Columbia v. Andrews, [1989] 1 S.C.J. No. 6, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143, at para. 43 (S.C.C.), as discussed in Sonia Lawrence, "Equality and Anti-Discrimination: The Relationship between Government Goals and Finding Discrimination in Section 15" in Peter Oliver, Patrick Macklem & Nathalie DesRosiers, The Oxford Handbook of the Canadian Constitution (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017) 815, at 827-828.

37 Chae Chan Ping v. U.S. (Chinese Exclusion Case), 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1778, 130 U.S. 581, at 606 (U.S.S.C.).

38 Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement, Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (Examination of Eligibility to Refer Claim): SOR/2023-58, see online: https://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2023/2023-04-12/html/sor-dors58-eng.html#. For background, see Hélène Mayrand & Andrew Smith-Grégoire, "À la croisée du chemin Roxham et de la rhétorique politique: démystifier l'Entente sur les tiers pays sûrs" (2018) 48 R.D.U.S. 321.

39 Additional Protocol to the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America for Cooperation in the Examination of Refugee Status Claims from Nationals of Third Countries, March 29, 2022, Can. T.S. 2023 No. 3 (entry into force March 25, 2023).

40 June 26, 1987, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (entered into force June 26, 1987, ratified by Canada June 24, 1987) [hereinafter "CAT"].

41 December 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (entered into force March 23, 1976, accession by Canada May 19, 1976) [hereinafter "ICCPR"].

42 See Alexander Agnello & Frédéric Mégret, "The Impact of the United Nations Human Rights Treaties on the Domestic Level in Canada" in Christof Heyns, Frans Jacobus Viljoen & Rachel Murray, eds., The Impact of the United Nations Human Rights Treaties on the Domestic Level: Twenty Years On, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2024).

43 Baker v. Canada (Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] S.C.J. No. 39, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, at para. 69 (S.C.C.); R. v. Hape, [2007] S.C.J. No. 26, 2007 SCC 26, at paras. 35-39 (S.C.C.). 44 S.C. 2001, c. 27 [hereinafter "IRPA"].

45 S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 3(3)(f); see also s. 3(2)(b), which states that one of the IRPA's objectives is "to fulfil Canada's international legal obligations with respect to refugees". In Mason, Jamal J. wrote that "the presumption of conformity with international law assumes added force when interpreting the IRPA" because of these provisions: Mason v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2023] S.C.J. No. 21, 2023 SCC 21, at para. 106 (S.C.C.).

46 R. v. Hape, [2007] S.C.J. No. 26, 2007 SCC 26, at para. 53 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1089/hyb.2006.9997.1

47 Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America for cooperation in the examination of refugee status claims from nationals of third countries, December 5, 2002, Can. T.S. 2004 No. 2, at preamble, first recital.

48 Québec (Attorney General) v. 9147-0732 Québec inc., [2020] S.C.J. No. 32, 2020 SCC 32, at paras. 31 & 35 (S.C.C.), Brown and Rowe JJ.; Reference re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alberta.), [1987] S.C.J. No. 10, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313, at para. 59 (S.C.C.), Dickson C.J.C., dissenting.

49 S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 102(1)(a). https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200102000-00010

50 Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2023] S.C.J. No. 17, 2023 SCC 17, at para. 95 (S.C.C.). Justice Kasirer declined to affirm that the risk of refoulement from the United States actually engaged s. 7 because of gaps in the Federal Court's findings of fact, although he proceeded on the assumption that it did (at para. 107). Refoulement was also the focus of an earlier challenge to the constitutionality of the STCA regime: Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada, [2007] F.C.J. No. 1583, 2007 FC 1262 (F.C.), revd [2008] F.C.J. No. 1002, 2008 FCA 229 (F.C.A.). The Supreme Court has elsewhere recognized that non-refoulement is the "centrepiece", the "heart", or the "corner-stone" of the Refugee Convention: Mason v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2023] S.C.J. No. 21, 2023 SCC 21, at para. 107 (S.C.C.); Németh v. Canada (Justice), [2010] S.C.J. No. 56, 2010 SCC 56, at para. 18 (S.C.C.). https://doi.org/10.1353/sir.2010.0002

51 For a summary of this argument, see Luisa Feline Freier, Eleni Karageorgiou & Kate Ogg, "The Evolution of Safe Third Country Law and Practice" in Cathryn Costello, Michelle Foster & Jane McAdam, eds., The Oxford Handbook of International Refugee Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021) 518, at 519-520. https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198848639.003.0029

52 William A. Schabas, The Customary International Law of Human Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), at 161-190. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192845696.003.0006

53 Article 2 of the ICCPR bars discrimination based on "race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status". Article 3 of the ICCPR also obliges State parties to "ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights" in the Covenant.

54 The violation of article 2 (or similar provisions in other instruments) likely does not presuppose an actual violation of one of the other rights guarantees in the ICCPR. Case law from the European Court of Human Rights suggests that it would be "sufficient for the facts of the case to fall 'within the ambit' of one of the articles" in the Covenant to trigger such equality guarantees: Cathryn Costello & Michelle Foster, "(Some) Refugees Welcome: When Is Differentiating between Refugees Unlawful Discrimination?" (2022) Intl. J. Disc. L. 244, at 262. https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291221116476

55 UNHRC, General Comment No. 18: Non-Discrimination, 37th Sess., adopted November 10, 1989, UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1, at para. 12.

56 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, December 18, 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 13 (entered into force September 3, 1981, accession by Canada December 10, 1981) [hereinafter "CEDAW"].

57 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, March 7, 1966, 660 U.N.T.S. 195 (entered into force January 4, 1969, ratification by Canada October 14, 1970) [hereinafter "ICERD"]. Note that the ICERD contains provisos exempting distinctions between citizens and non-citizens, as well as "legal provisions . . . concerning nationality, citizenship or naturalization": ICERD, at arts. 1.2 & 1.3. Neither exemption would apply to distinctions made among different groups of refugees or refugee protection claimants.

58 Reinhard Marx & Wiebke Staff, "Article 3 (Non-Discrimination/Non-Discrimination)" in Andreas Zimmermann, ed., The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol: A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) 645, at 649 (para. 20).

59 Dickson v. Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, [2024] S.C.J. No. 10, 2024 SCC 10, at para. 24 (S.C.C.).

60 To be clear, this is not the only potential argument under s. 15. For instance, differential exposure to detention in the United States might infringe s. 15, even if that person's asylum claim were eventually accepted.

61 For discussion of the idea of procedural discrimination in refugee law, see James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees in International Law, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), at 280-282.

62 Y.Z. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.C.J. No. 880, 2015 FC 892, at para. 124 (F.C.); Feher v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2019] F.C.J. No. 308, 2019 FC 335, at para. 256 (F.C.).

63 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 137 (entered into force April 22, 1954, accession by Canada June 4 1969), at art. 1.A(2).

64 Second Supplementary Affidavit of Karen Musalo, December 11, 2023, in Applicants' Supplementary Record for s. 15 Re-Determination, Vol. 1, CCR et al v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Court File Nos. IMM-2977 17, IMM-775-17, and IMM -2229-17, at paras. 8-19. See also Karen Musalo, "Aligning United States Law with International Norms Would Remove Major Barriers to Protection in Gender Claims" (2024) 36 Intl. J. Refugee L. at 20-32. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeae009

65 That is, since Québec (Attorney General) v. Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux, [2018] S.C.J. No. 17, 2018 SCC 17, at para. 25 (S.C.C.); Centrale des syndicats du Québec v. Québec (Attorney General), [2018] S.C. J. No. 18, 2018 SCC 18, at para. 22 (S.C.C.).

66 [2020] S.C.J. No. 28, 2020 SCC 28 (S.C.C.).

67 [2022] S.C.J. No. 39, 2022 SCC 39 (S.C.C.).

68 Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2023] S.C.J. No. 17, 2023 SCC 17, at para. 179 (S.C.C.).

69 Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), [2020] F.C.J. No. 795, 2020 FC 770, at para. 84 (F.C.); Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2023] S.C.J. No. 17, 2023 SCC 17, Factum of Respondent, at para. 82 (S.C.C.).

70 Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2023] S.C.J. No. 17, 2023 SCC 17, at para. 84 (S.C.C.).

71 Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General), [2020] S.C.J. No. 28, 2020 SCC 28, at para. 215 (S.C.C.), Brown and Rowe JJ., dissenting [hereinafter "Fraser"]. This aspect of the Fraser dissent is reminiscent of the majority decision in Symes v. Canada, [1993] S.C.J. No. 131, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695, at para. 134 (S.C.C.) ("We must take care to distinguish between effects which are wholly caused, or are contributed to, by an impugned provision, and those social circumstances which exist independently of such a provision.") See also Québec (Attorney General) v. Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux, [2018] S.C.J. No. 17, 2018 SCC 17, at para. 97 (S.C.C.), Brown, Côté and Rowe JJ., dissenting.

72 Fraser, at para. 70 (S.C.C.), Abella J.

73 Essop and others (Appellants) v. Home Offıce (U.K. Border Agency), [2017] U.K.S.C. 27, at para. 24 (U.K.S.C.), cited by Abella J. in Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General), [2020] S.C.J. No. 28, 2020 SCC 28, at para. 70 (S.C.C.).

74 Fraser, at para. 178 (S.C.C.), Brown and Rowe JJ., dissenting.

75 Fraser, at para. 175 (S.C.C.), Brown and Rowe JJ., dissenting. Italics removed.

76 Fraser, at para. 177 (S.C.C.), Brown and Rowe JJ., dissenting. Underlining removed.

77 Benjamin Perryman, "Proving Discrimination: Evidentiary Barriers and Section 15(1) of the Charter" (2023) 114 S.C.L.R. (2d) 93, at 101-102 https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4570775; Margot Young, "Zombie Concepts: Contagion in Canadian Equality Law" (2023) 114 S.C.L.R. (2d) 35, at 44-47; Jennifer Koshan & Jonnette Watson Hamilton, "'Clarifications' or 'Wholesale Revisions'? The Last Five Years of Equality Jurisprudence at the Supreme Court of Canada" (2023) 114 S.C.L.R. (2d) 15, at 25-26.

78 For the distinction between "demanding" and "generous" interpretations of s. 15 of the Charter, see Anthony Sangiuliano, "Finding Fault under Section 15 of the Charter: Miller J.A.'s Court of Appeal Dissent in Sharma" (2023), 114 S.C.L.R. (2d) 79.

79 R. v. Sharma, [2022] S.C.J. No. 39, 2022 SCC 39, at para. 205 (S.C.C.), Karakatsanis J., dissenting [hereinafter "Sharma"].

80 Sharma, at para. 40 (S.C.C.), Brown and Rowe JJ.

81 Sharma, at para. 46 (S.C.C.), Brown and Rowe JJ.

82 Sharma, at para. 49 (S.C.C.), Brown and Rowe JJ.

83 Most notably, perhaps, Karatsakanis J., writing in dissent: Sharma, at para. 204 (S.C.C.).

84 Sharma, at paras. 33-34 (S.C.C.), Brown and Rowe JJ.

85 Fraser, at paras. 57-58 (S.C.C.), Abella J. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)78867-3

86 Fraser, at para. 58 (S.C.C.), Abella J. "This evidence may include statistics" (emphasis added); Sharma, at para. 49 (S.C.C.), Brown and Rowe JJ. See also Jonnette Watson Hamilton & Jennifer Koshan, "Sharma: The Erasure of Both Group-Based Disadvantage and Individual Impact" (2024) 115 S.C.L.R. (2d) 113, at 126.

87 Sharma, at para. 49 (S.C.C.), Brown and Rowe JJ.

88 Sharma, at para. 49 (S.C.C.), Brown and Rowe JJ.

89 Sharma, at para. 227 (S.C.C.), Karatsakanis J., dissenting.

90 This would differ from the evidence in Sharma. In that case an expert witness testified that it was "unknown" whether a relatively recent amendment to the Criminal Code, making conditional sentences unavailable for certain offences, would have a disproportionate impact on Indigenous offenders: Sharma, at para. 74 (S.C.C.), Brown and Rowe JJ.

91 Fraser, at para. 76 (S.C.C.), Abella J.

92 Fraser, at para. 78 (S.C.C.), Abella J.

93 Fraser, at paras. 79-80 (S.C.C.), Abella J.

94 Fraser, at para. 191 (S.C.C.), Brown and Rowe JJ., dissenting.

95 Sharma, at para. 53 (S.C.C.), Brown and Rowe JJ.

96 Sharma, at para. 59 (S.C.C.), Brown and Rowe JJ. They relied on, among other cases, Withler v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] S.C.J. No. 12, 2011 SCC 12, at para. 3 (S.C.C.).

97 Sharma, at para. 205 (S.C.C.), Karakatsanis J., dissenting.

98 Margot Young, "Zombie Concepts: Contagion in Canadian Equality Law" (2023) 114 S.C.L.R. (2d) 35, at 48-49; Jonnette Watson Hamilton & Jennifer Koshan, "Sharma: The Erasure of Both Group-Based Disadvantage and Individual Impact" (2024) 115 S.C.L.R. 113, at 122-123

https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1448; Jennifer Koshan & Jonnette Watson Hamilton, "'Clarifications' or 'Wholesale Revisions'? The Last Five Years of Equality Jurisprudence at the Supreme Court of Canada" (2023) 114 S.C.L.R. (2d) 15, at 28 (footnote 70).

99 Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2023] S.C.J. No. 17, 2023 SCC 17, at para. 139 (S.C.C.).

100 Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2023] S.C.J. No. 17, 2023 SCC 17, at para. 139 (S.C.C.).

101 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 48(2). This provision states that removal orders "must be enforced as soon as possible". The courts have interpreted this language as giving rise to a discretion to defer removal if a foreign national faces certain risks: Baron v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2009] F.C.J. No. 314, 2009 FCA 81 (F.C.A.); Shpati v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2011] F.C.J. No. 1454, 2011 FCA 286 (F.C.A.).

102 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 24.

103 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 25.1(1).

104 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 25.2(1).

105 Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2023] S.C.J. No. 17, 2023 SCC 17, at para. 163 (S.C.C.).

106 Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America for cooperation in the examination of refugee status claims from nationals of third countries, December 5, 2002, Can. T.S. 2004 No. 2, at preamble, recital 7.

107 New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G. (J.), [1999] S.C.J. No. 47, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46, at paras. 112-115 (S.C.C.), L'Heureux-Dubé J.; R. v. Mills, [1999] S.C.J. No. 68, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668, at paras. 90-93 (S.C.C.), McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ. For discussion, see Peter W. Hogg, "Equality as a Charter Value in Constitutional Interpretation" (2003) 20 S.C.L.R. (2d) 113.

108 The Forced Migration Research Network, "The World's Largest Minority? Refugee Women and Girls in the Global Compact" (Sydney: University of New South Wales, 2017); Jeni Klugman, Elena Ortiz & Amalia Hadas Rubin, Key Challenges for Refugee Policies and Programs: A Gender Perspective (Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group, 2022).

109 Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] S.C.J. No. 86, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624, at para. 61 ("Section 15(1) . . . was intended to ensure a measure of substantive, and not merely formal equality.") L'Heureux-Dubé J. first used the term in dissent in Symes v. Canada, [1993] S.C.J. No. 131, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695, at paras. 178 & 229 (S.C.C.), L'Heureux-Dubé J., dissenting.

110 Law Society of British Columbia v. Andrews, [1989] S.C.J. No. 6, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143 (S.C.C.).

111 R. v. Kapp, [2008] S.C.J. No. 42, 2008 SCC 41, at paras. 21-24 (S.C.C.).

112 Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] S.C.J. No. 12, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497 (S.C.C.).

113 Withler v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] S.C.J. No. 12, 2011 SCC 12, at para. 2 (S.C.C.).

114 Withler v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] S.C.J. No. 12, 2011 SCC 12, at para. 39 (S.C.C.).

115 Fraser, at paras. 40 & 42 (S.C.C.), Abella J.

116 Fraser, at para. 219 (S.C.C.), Brown and Rowe JJ., dissenting.

117 Sharma, at para. 38 (S.C.C.), Brown and Rowe JJ. For a discussion of this aspect of the majority's reasoning in Sharma, see Jonnette Watson Hamilton & Jennifer Koshan, "Sharma: The Erasure of Both Group-Based Disadvantage and Individual Impact" (2024) 115 S.C.L.R. 113, at 116-117. https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1448

118 Further, it is out of step with international interpretive guidance on the norm of non-discrimination. See, e.g., UNCESCR, General Comment No. 16: Article 3 (The equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all economic, social and cultural rights), 34th Sess., adopted August 11, 2005, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2005/3, at paras. 7-9

UNHRC, Report of the Working Group on discrimination against women and girls: Escalating backlash against gender equality and urgency of reaffırming substantive equality and the human rights of women and girls, adopted May 15, 2024, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/56/51, at paras. 73-74.

119 Jennifer Koshan & Jonnette Watson Hamilton, "'Clarifications' or 'Wholesale Revisions'? The Last Five Years of Equality Jurisprudence at the Supreme Court of Canada" (2023) 114 S.C.L.R. (2d) 15, at 20.

120 Dickson v. Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, [2024] S.C.J. No. 10, 2024 SCC 10, at para. 193 (S.C.C.), Jamal and Kasirer JJ., citing Lynn Smith & William Black, "The Equality Rights" (2013) 62 S.C.L.R. (2d) 301, at 336.

121 Dickson v. Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, [2024] S.C.J. No. 10, 2024 SCC 10, at para. 195 (S.C.C.), Jamal and Kasirer JJ., citing Corbiere v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), [1999] S.C.J. No. 24, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203, at para. 8 (S.C.C.).

122 "Non-resident status in a self-governing Indigenous community": Dickson v. Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, [2024] S.C.J. No. 10, 2024 SCC 10, at paras. 193-198 (S.C.C.), Kasirer and Jamal JJ.

123 Dickson v. Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, [2024] S.C.J. No. 10, 2024 SCC 10, at paras. 346 & 349 (S.C.C.), Martin and O'Bomsawin JJ. Note that Rowe J. does not address the s. 15 issue in his dissent in Dickson. Justice Brown did not participate in the decision because he is no longer on the Court.

124 Law Society of British Columbia v. Andrews, [1989] 1 S.C.J. No. 6, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143, at 171 (S.C.C.).

125 Other scholars have given much more in-depth treatment of what substantive equality might mean. See, e.g., the power-based conception in Margot Young, "Unequal to the Task: 'Kapp'ing the Substantive Potential of Section 15" in Sanda Rodgers & Sheila McIntyre, eds., The Supreme Court of Canada and Social Justice: Commitment, Retrenchment or Retreat (Markham: LexisNexis, 2010) 183, at 193-199; or, alternately, the recognition-focused conception in Anthony Sangiuliano, "Substantive Equality as Equal Recognition: A New Theory of Section 15 of the Charter" (2015) 52:2 Osgoode Hall L.J. 601. Below, we suggest substantive equality in the context of refugee protection can be understood in terms of subordination. https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.2821

126 Joseph H. Carens, The Ethics of Immigration (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), at 195-196; David Owen, What Do We Owe Refugees? (Cambridge: Polity, 2020).

127 Joseph H. Carens, The Ethics of Immigration (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), at 196.

128 Rebecca Buxton, "What is Wrong with Persecution" (2022) 54:2 J. of Social Philosophy 201, at 209. https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12496

129 Matthew Price, Rethinking Asylum: History, Purpose, and Limits (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), at 243.

130 Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, (New York: Meridian Books, Inc., 1958), at 269.

131 On discrimination as subordination, see Sophia Moreau, Faces of Inequality: A Theory of Wrongful Discrimination (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020), at ch. 2. For other discussions, see Anthony Sangiuliano, "Justifying Antisubordination" (2023) Am. J.L. Equal. 347

Daniel Viehoff, "Subordination and the Wrong of Discrimination" (2024) 63 Dialogue, at 45-57. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0012217323000306

132 James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees in International Law, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), at 177.

133 Although we cannot elaborate on the point, such an interpretation is consistent with Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] S.C.J. No. 74, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, at para. 73 (S.C.C.), still the leading case in Canada on the interpretation of the Convention refugee definition. In Ward, La Forest J. stressed that "[u]nderlying the Convention is the international community's commitment to the assurance of basic human rights without discrimination" by offering "surrogate or substitute protection" to refugees: Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] S.C.J. No. 74, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, at paras. 18 & 63 (S.C.C.).

134 David Owen, What Do We Owe Refugees? (Cambridge, U.K.: Polity, 2020), at 47.

135 Margot Young, "Unequal to the Task: 'Kapp'ing the Substantive Potential of Section 15" in Sanda Rodgers & Sheila McIntyre, eds., The Supreme Court of Canada and Social Justice: Commitment, Retrenchment or Retreat (Markham: LexisNexis, 2010) 183, at 184.

136 Fay Faraday, "The Elephant in the Room and Straw Men on Fire" (2021) 30:2 Constitutional Forum 15, at 16, and the collection of papers in Cheryl Milne & Sophia Moreau, eds., Litigating Equality (Markham: LexisNexis, 2024). https://doi.org/10.21991/cf29419

137 Fay Faraday, "The Elephant in the Room and Straw Men on Fire" (2021) 30:2 Constitutional Forum 15, at 16. See also, Nandita Sharma, "Immigration Status and the Legalization of Inequality" in Harald Bauder & John Shields, eds., Immigration, Integration and the Settlement Experience in North America (Toronto: Canadian Scholar's Press, 2015) 204. https://doi.org/10.21991/cf29419

138 Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2023] S.C.J. No. 17, 2023 SCC 17, at para. 4 (S.C.C.).

139 Cheryl Milne & Jamie Chai Yun Liew, "The Canada-US Safe Third Country Agreement: A Lifeline from the Supreme Court" (2023) 7 PKI Global Justice Journal 6.

140 Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2023] S.C.J. No. 17, 2023 SCC 17, at para. 180 (S.C.C.).