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: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference
5.
().
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1464
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol5/iss1/6
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.