A Necessary Realignment:Section 7 Engagement in Canadian Council for Refugees

Authors

Jacqueline Swaisland, Landings LLP
Alison Imrie, Landings LLP

Abstract

This paper explains how the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Canadian Council for Refugees repudiates decades of section 7 jurisprudence in the immigration law context and mandates that it be realigned with the section 7 jurisprudence outside of it. The paper sets out how Courts in the immigration context continue to apply decades-old jurisprudence which unilaterally declared that section 7 cannot be engaged by a person’s removal from Canada. It also explains how the Courts incorporated a remoteness barrier into the causation analysis which further prevented section 7 scrutiny of government action in the immigration context in all but the final stages of a person’s removal. While these trends have long been entrenched in immigration jurisprudence, this paper sets out how the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Canadian Council for Refugees compels lower Courts to reject the imposition of these dated barriers and realign the section 7 analysis applied in the immigration context so that section 7 of the Charter can finally be applied consistently to everyone.

Citation Information

Swaisland, Jacqueline and Imrie, Alison. "A Necessary Realignment:Section 7 Engagement in Canadian Council for Refugees." The Supreme Court Law Review, Third Series: Osgoode's Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 5. (2026).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1005
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr-third-series/vol5/iss1/6

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, at s.7 (emphasis added) [hereinafter the "Charter"]. Section 7 captures deprivations executed by foreign officials if the impugned Canadian state action is a precondition for the deprivation and the deprivation is a foreseeable consequence of the state's participation. See United States of America v. Burns, [2001] S.C.J. No. 8, 2001 SCC 7, at paras. 59-60 & 124 (S.C.C.); Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] S.C.J. No. 3, 2002 SCC 1, at para. 54 (S.C.C.).

2 Singh v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1985] S.C.J. No. 11, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177, at 202 (S.C.C.); Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] S.C.J. No. 9, 2007 SCC 9, at paras. 17-18 (S.C.C.).

3 See e.g., United States of America v. Ferras, [2004] O.J. No. 1089, 237 D.L.R. (4th) 645, at para. 8 (Ont. C.A.), affd United States of America v. Ferras; United States of America v. Latty, [2006] S.C.J. No. 33, 2006 SCC 33 (S.C.C.).

4 Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), [2000] S.C.J. No. 43, 2000 SCC 44, at para. 54 (S.C.C.).

5 Baril v. Obelnicki, [2007] M.J. No. 110, 2007 MBCA 40 (Man. C.A.).

6 Victoria (City) v. Adams, [2009] B.C.J. No. 2451, 2009 BCCA 563 (B.C.C.A.).

7 R. v. Beare, [1987] S.C.J. No. 92, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387 (S.C.C.).

8 Godbout v. Longueuil (City), [1997] S.C.J. No. 95, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844 (S.C.C.).

9 See e.g., Moretto v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2019] F.C.J. No. 1194, 2019 FCA 261, at paras. 49-52 (F.C.A.); Revell v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2019] F.C.J. No. 1195, 2019 FCA 262, at para. 66 (F.C.A.) [hereinafter "Revell"]; Chen v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2019] F.C.J. No. 1568, 2019 FC 1595, at para. 31 (F.C.); Medovarski v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); Esteban v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] S.C.J. No. 31, 2005 SCC 51, at paras. 45-46 (S.C.C.).

10 See e.g., New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G. (J.), [1999] S.C.J. No. 47, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46, at para. 61 (S.C.C.); Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. K.L.W., [2000] S.C.J. No. 48, 2000 SCC 48, at paras. 5-6 (S.C.C.).

11 See e.g., Idahosa v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2008] F.C.J. No. 1800, 2008 FCA 418, at para. 49 (F.C.A.); De Guzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.C.J. No. 2119, 2005 FCA 436, at paras. 46-47 (F.C.A.); Begum v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2018] F.C.J. No. 1007, 2018 FCA 181, at paras. 104-106 (F.C.A.).

12 See e.g., Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), [2000] S.C.J. No. 43, 2000 SCC 44, at para. 57 (S.C.C.); New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G. (J.), [1999] S.C.J. No. 47, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46, at para. 60 (S.C.C.).

13 Revell, at para. 78 (F.C.A.).

14 See e.g., Audrey Macklin, "The Inside-Out Constitution: Immigration Exceptionalism Explained" in Jacco Bomhoff, David Dyzenhaus & Thomas Poole, eds., The Double-Facing Constitution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020) [hereinafter "Double-Facing Constitution"], at 246; Asha Kaushal, "The Constitution in the Shadow of the Immigration State" [hereinafter "Kaushal"] in Double-Facing Constitution, at 289-290; 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 18 [hereinafter "Blum"].

15 [2013] S.C.J. No. 72. 2013 SCC 72 (S.C.C.).

16 Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2023] S.C.J. No. 17, 2023 SCC 17 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "CCR"].

17 Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), [2015] S.C.J. No. 5, 2015 SCC 5, at para. 55 (S.C.C.); Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, [2013] S.C.J. No. 72. 2013 SCC 72, at paras. 57‑58 (S.C.C.).

18 Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), [2015] S.C.J. No. 5, 2015 SCC 5, at para. 62 (S.C.C.); R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, [2003] S.C.J. No. 79, 2003 SCC 74, at para. 89 (S.C.C.); Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] S.C.J. No. 3, 2002 SCC 1, at para. 27 (S.C.C.).

19 Reference re Alien Labour Act, s. 6 (Can.), [1906] J.C.J. No. 2, [1906] A.C. 542 (P.C.); R. v. Governor of Pentonville Prison, [1973] 2 All E.R. 741, [1973] 2 W.L.R. 949 (U.K.); Kaushal, in Double-Facing Constitution, at 288-289.

20 Audrey Macklin, "The Inside-Out Constitution: Immigration Exceptionalism Explained" in Double-Facing Constitution, at 246.

21 [1992] S.C.J. No. 27, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711 (S.C.C.) [hereinafter "Chiarelli"].

22 Audrey Macklin, "The Inside-Out Constitution: Immigration Exceptionalism Explained" in Double-Facing Constitution, at 261. See also: Kaushal, in Double-Facing Constitution, at 298; Ninette Kelley, "Rights in the Balance: Non-citizens and State Sovereignty Under the Charter" in David Dyzenhaus, ed., The Unity of Public Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2004), at 265-266.

23 Chiarelli, at 733 (S.C.C.).

24 Chiarelli, at 734 (S.C.C.).

25 Audrey Macklin, "The Common Law, the Constitution, and the Alien" in Paul Daly, ed., Apex Courts and the Common Law (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2019), at 201-202. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781487530167-009

26 Blum, at 20.

27 Kaushal, in Double-Facing Constitution, at 290; 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 680-682.

https://doi.org/10.7202/1018393ar

28 Medovarski v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); Esteban v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] S.C.J. No. 31, 2005 SCC 51 (S.C.C.).

29 S.C. 2001, c. 27 [hereinafter "IRPA"].

30 Medovarski v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); Esteban v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] S.C.J. No. 31, 2005 SCC 51, at para. 45 (S.C.C.).

31 Medovarski v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); Esteban v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] S.C.J. No. 31, 2005 SCC 51, at para. 46 (S.C.C.) (citations omitted).

32 See e.g., the commentary and criticism in: Blum, at 23 & 32; Kaushal, in Double- Facing Constitution, at 299; Hamish Stewart, Fundamental Justice: Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2019), at 91-92; Gerald Heckman, "Revisiting the Application of Section 7 of the Charter in Immigration and Refugee Protection" (2017) 68 U.N.B. L.J. 312, at 330-331; Audrey Macklin, "The Inside-Out Constitution: Immigration Exceptionalism Explained" in Double-Facing Constitution, at 256-257.

33 Singh v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1985] S.C.J. No. 11, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177, at 202 (S.C.C.).

34 Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] S.C.J. No. 3, 2002 SCC 1, at para. 44 (S.C.C.).

35 Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] S.C.J. No. 9, 2007 SCC 9, at paras. 17-18 (S.C.C.); Kaushal, in Double-Facing Constitution, at 305-306. It has been noted that these deprivations of liberty were "located in the 'features' of deportation . . . not in deportation itself": Kaushal, in Double-Facing Constitution, at 303.

36 Blum, at 23-24; See e.g., Chu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] F.C.J. No. 1119, 2006 FC 893, at para. 73 (F.C.), affd Chu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] F.C.J. No. 777, 2007 FCA 205 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed, [2007] S.C.C.A No. 398; Begum v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2018] F.C.J. No. 1007, 2018 FCA 181, at paras. 99-102 (F.C.A.); Revell, at paras. 78-79 (F.C.A.).

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

38 Revell, at paras. 14-22 (F.C.A.).

39 Revell, at para. 37 (F.C.A.).

40 Revell, at para. 66 (F.C.A.).

41 Revell, at paras. 76-78 (F.C.A.).

42 Moretto v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2019] F.C.J. No. 1194, 2019 FCA 261, at para. 49 (F.C.A.).

43 Moretto v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2019] F.C.J. No. 1194, 2019 FCA 261, at para. 51 (F.C.A.).

44 Moretto v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2019] F.C.J. No. 1194, 2019 FCA 261, at para. 52 (F.C.A.).

45 Blum, at 27, footnote 99.

46 [2019] S.C.C.A. No. 478; [2019] S.C.C.A. No. 482.

47 Revell, at para. 78 (F.C.A.).

48 Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, [2013] S.C.J. No. 72. 2013 SCC 72 (S.C.C.); Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, [2011] S.C.J. No. 44, 2011 SCC 44 (S.C.C.).

49 Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, [2011] S.C.J. No. 44, 2011 SCC 44, at paras. 113-114 (S.C.C.).

50 Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, [2013] S.C.J. No. 72. 2013 SCC 72, at para. 75 (S.C.C.).

51 Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, [2013] S.C.J. No. 72. 2013 SCC 72, at para. 76 (S.C.C.).

52 Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, [2013] S.C.J. No. 72. 2013 SCC 72, at para. 87 (S.C.C.).

53 Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, [2013] S.C.J. No. 72. 2013 SCC 72, at para. 77 (S.C.C.).

54 Revell, at paras. 46-51 (F.C.A.); Moretto v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2019] F.C.J. No. 1194, 2019 FCA 261, at paras. 43-44 (F.C.A.); B010 v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] S.C.J. No. 58, 2015 SCC 58, at para. 75 (S.C.C.); Seklani v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2020] F.C.J. No. 799, 2020 FC 778, at para. 29 (F.C.); Tapambwa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2019] F.C.J. No. 186, 2019 FCA 34, at paras. 81-83 (F.C.A.).

55 Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, [2011] S.C.J. No. 44, 2011 SCC 44, at para. 113 (S.C.C.). The Court in PHS noted that safety valves could be relevant to the section 7 analysis - but incorporated them into the analysis of principles of fundamental justice, rather than section 7 engagement.

56 IRPA, s. 34-42; Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-2277, s. 228 [hereinafter "IRPR"].

57 IRPA, s. 40(1)(c), 40.1 & 108-109; IRPR, s. 228(1)(b) & (b.1).

58 IRPA, s. 98; IRPR, s. 224(2) & 229(2).

59 IRPA, s. 44(2); IRPR, s. 228(1).

60 IRPA, s. 48(2).

61 The Courts have relied on a variety of potential safety valves, including applications for pre-removal risk assessments ("PRRAs"), deferrals of removal, and stays of removal. However, academic commentary has drawn attention to the problems with relying on safety valves in the context of removal: see e.g., Colin Grey, "Thinkable: The Charter and Refugee Law after Appulonappa and B010" (2016) 76 S.C.L.R. (2d) 111, at 136-138; Blum, at 37-39; Asha Kaushal, "The Webbing of Public Law: Looking Through Deportation Doctrine" 59:2 O.H.L.J. 291, at 331-336.

62 For example, when officers assess PRRAs, they will rely on factual findings - including credibility findings - made by the IRB's divisions unless there is new admissible evidence of risk: Colin Grey, "Thinkable: The Charter and Refugee Law after Appulonappa and B010" (2016) 76 S.C.L.R. (2d) 111, at 136-137. https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1331

63 See e.g., B010 v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] S.C.J. No. 58, 2015 SCC 58, at para.75 (S.C.C.); Poshteh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.C.J. No. 381, 2005 FCA 85, at para. 63 (F.C.A.); Tapambwa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2019] F.C.J. No. 186, 2019 FCA 34, at paras. 81 & 83 (F.C.A.); Revell, at paras. 35-57 (F.C.A.); Romero v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.C.J. No. 720, 2014 FC 671, at paras. 120-124 (F.C.); Kreishan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2019] F.C.J. No. 972, 2019 FCA 223, at para. 127 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed, [2019] S.C.C.A. No. 398; Coomaraswamy v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] F.C.J. No. 603, 2002 FCA 153, at para. 24 (F.C.A.); Seklani v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2020] F.C.J. No. 799, 2020 FC 778, at para. 29 (F.C.).

64 Blum, at 30.

65 United States of America v. Cobb, [2001] S.C.J. No. 20, 2001 SCC 19, at para. 34 (S.C.C.); Froom v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2004] F.C.J. No. 1735, 2004 FCA 352, at paras. 18-19 (F.C.A.); R. v. Hebert, [1990] S.C.J. No. 64, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151, at 162 (S.C.C.); R. v. Singh, [2007] S.C.J. No. 48, 2007 SCC 48, at para. 22 (S.C.C.); Gerald Heckman, "Revisiting the Application of Section 7 of the Charter in Immigration and Refugee Protection" (2017) 68 U.N.B. L.J. 312, at 332-333.

66 United States of America v. Cobb, [2001] S.C.J. No. 20, 2001 SCC 19, at para. 34 (S.C.C.); Gerald Heckman, "Revisiting the Application of Section 7 of the Charter in Immigration and Refugee Protection" (2017) 68 U.N.B. L.J. 312, at 332; Hamish Stewart, Fundamental Justice: Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2019), at 92.

67 [1998] F.C.J. No. 1503, [1999] 1 F.C. 266 (F.C.), affd [2000] F.C.J. No. 1956, 266 N.R. 355 (F.C.A.). See also: Blum, at 28.

68 Jekula v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 1503, [1999] 1 F.C. 266, at 274-275 (F.C.).

69 Jekula v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 1503, [1999] 1 F.C. 266, at 285 (F.C.).

70 Jekula v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 1503, [1999] 1 F.C. 266, at 285-286 (F.C.).

71 See e.g., Poshteh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.C.J. No. 381, 2005 FCA 85, at para. 63 (F.C.A.); Coomaraswamy v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] F.C.J. No. 603, 2002 FCA 153, at para. 24 (F.C.A.); Annalingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] F.C.J. No. 971, 2002 FCA 281, at para. 24 (F.C.A.).

72 Febles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] S.C.J. No. 68, 2014 SCC 68, at para. 9 (S.C.C.).

73 Febles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] S.C.J. No. 68, 2014 SCC 68, at para. 67 (S.C.C.).

74 B010 v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] S.C.J. No. 58, 2015 SCC 58, at para. 2 (S.C.C.).

75 B010 v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] S.C.J. No. 58, 2015 SCC 58, at para.76 (S.C.C.).

76 Blum, at 31.

77 B010 v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] S.C.J. No. 58, 2015 SCC 58, at para.75 (S.C.C.).

78 B010 v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] S.C.J. No. 58, 2015 SCC 58, at para.75 (S.C.C.).

79 See e.g., Gerald Heckman, "Revisiting the Application of Section 7 of the Charter in Immigration and Refugee Protection" (2017) 68 U.N.B. L.J. 312, at 351; Blum, at 32.

80 Blum, at 34-35.

81 Revell, at para. 56 (F.C.A.).

82 Revell, at para. 38 (F.C.A.).

83 Kreishan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2019] F.C.J. No. 972, 2019 FCA 223, at para. 127 (F.C.A.); Tapambwa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2019] F.C.J. No. 186, 2019 FCA 34, at para. 81 (F.C.A.); Brar v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2016] F.C.J. No. 1241, 2016 FC 1214, at para. 21 (F.C.); Chabanov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2017] F.C.J. No. 43, 2017 FC 73, at para. 85 (F.C.); Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2017] F.C.J. No. 77, 2017 FC 28, at para. 55 (F.C.).

84 Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), [2020] F.C.J. No. 795, 2020 FC 770, at para. 103 (F.C.) [hereinafter "CCR, (F.C.)"].

85 CCR, at paras. 104-115 (F.C.).

86 CCR, at paras. 138-140 (F.C.).

87 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Canadian Council for Refugees, [2021] F.C.J. No. 322, 2021 FCA 72, at paras. 132-150 [hereinafter "CCR, (F.C.A.)"].

88 CCR, at paras. 151-168 (F.C.A.).

89 CCR, at paras. 86-108 (S.C.C.).

90 CCR, at para. 89 (S.C.C.).

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

92 CCR, at para. 7 (S.C.C.) [citations omitted].

93 CCR, at para. 73 (S.C.C.).

94 CCR, at para. 73 (S.C.C.).

95 CCR, at para. 73 (S.C.C.).

96 CCR, at para. 73 (S.C.C.).

97 See e.g., Roman Slepczik v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration et al, IMM-5481-23, and Abdiaziz Mohamed Ali et al v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-3302-20.