Canada (AG) v Ward

Last updated
Canada (AG) v Ward
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: March 25, 1992
Judgment: June 30, 1993
Full case namePatrick Francis Ward v. The Attorney General of Canada
Citations [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689
Docket No.21937 [1]
Prior historyJudgment for the Attorney General of Canada in the Federal Court of Appeal.
RulingAppeal allowed.
Holding
Women, children, and sexual minorities are protected under refugee law. Refugee claimants must show that the state is unable to act, but do not need to establish state complicity. [2]
Court membership
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer
Puisne Justices: Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, William Stevenson, Frank Iacobucci
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons byLa Forest J.
Lamer C.J. and Sopinka, McLachlin, and Stevenson JJ. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Canada (AG) v Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689 was a landmark refugee law case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. It was significant for clarifying what constitutes a "well-founded fear of persecution" when making a claim for Convention refugee status. [2]

Contents

Background

In 1983, Patrick Ward joined the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA), hoping to “take a stand” and “protect himself and his family... from the IRA.” Soon after joining, he was ordered to guard a group of hostages, but after learning that they were to be executed, he allowed them to escape, citing his “conscience.” [3] When the INLA discovered what Ward had done, they captured him, tortured him, and sentenced him to death. He was able to escape with the help of the police but was charged for his role in the original crime, spending three years in prison. After being released, he flew to Canada with the assistance of a prison chaplain and claimed refugee status. The Immigration and Refugee Board accepted his claim but the Federal Court of Appeal subsequently rejected it, causing Ward to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which heard the case in 1992. [4]

Opinion of the Court

Canadian law, borrowing from the 1951 Refugee Convention, says that a "Convention refugee" must have a "well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion" and that they must be "unable or, by reason of that fear... unwilling to avail [themself] of the protection of [their] country." The judgment of the court, rendered by Gérard La Forest, held that Ward was not persecuted as a member of a "particular social group," but that he may have been persecuted because of his "political opinions." [4]

Because Ward held dual British-Irish citizenship, the claim that he could not "avail himself of the protection of" his country was also contentious. Even if he could not avail himself of Irish protection, it was possible that he could avail himself of British protection. La Forest ruled that while Britain could be assumed capable of protecting its own citizens, it might reject Ward's right of entry because of his ties to the INLA. [4]

Ultimately, La Forest permitted the appeal and returned the case to the Immigration and Refugee Board. [3] However, in the end, Ward's refugee status was denied and he was deported in 1997. [5]

Significance

The decision in Canada (AG) v Ward explicitly named women, children, and sexual minorities as groups protected under the “particular social group” clause of the 1951 Refugee Convention. [2] The rationale for naming these particular groups was that gender, age, and sexual orientation are “immutable characteristics.” Some praised the court’s decision as a “step forward in human rights” while others criticized it for its focus on the “innateness” of protected characteristics rather than their marginalized status within society. [6] [7]

The decision also recognized the responsibility of states to protect their people and to prevent them from being threatened or abused. La Forest’s ruling asserts that if a state is unable or unwilling to protect someone, that is grounds for that person to claim persecution, even in the absence of direct “state complicity.” [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

An asylum seeker is a person who leaves their country of residence, enters another country, and makes in that other country a formal application for the right of asylum according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 14. A person keeps the status of asylum seeker until the right of asylum application has concluded.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jeremy Hinzman</span> American deserter and Iraq War resister

Jeremy Dean Hinzman is an Iraq War resister who was the first American deserter to seek refugee status in Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada</span>

The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, established in 1989 by an Act of Parliament, is an independent administrative tribunal that is responsible for making decisions on immigration and refugee matters. As one of their responsibilities, the IRB decides on applications for refugee protection made by individuals. The IRB reports to Parliament through the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship (IRCC), but remains independent from both the IRCC and the Minister.

The right of asylum, sometimes called right of political asylum, is an ancient juridical concept, under which people persecuted by their own rulers might be protected by another sovereign authority, such as a second country or another entity which in medieval times could offer sanctuary. This right was recognized by the Ancient Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Hebrews, from whom it was adopted into Western tradition. René Descartes fled to the Netherlands, Voltaire to England, and Thomas Hobbes to France, because each state offered protection to persecuted foreigners. Contemporary right of asylum is founded on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Non-refoulement is a fundamental principle of international law anchored in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees that forbids a country from deporting any person to any country in which their "life or freedom would be threatened" on account of "race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion". The only exception to non-refoulement according to Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees are "reasonable grounds" of "danger to the security of the country" or "danger to the community of that country". Unlike political asylum, which applies only to those who can prove a well-grounded fear of political persecution, non-refoulement refers to the generic deportation of people, including refugees into war zones and other disaster locales.

<i>Canadian Council of Churches v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canadian Council of Churches v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on the law of standing in Canada. In particular, the case sets out the criteria a public-interest group must meet in order to be allowed to mount a constitutional challenge in court.

<i>Singh v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada constitutional case

Singh v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177 is a 1985 case of the Supreme Court of Canada. It determined that refugee claimants had a constitutional right to an oral hearing, by the principles of fundamental justice. The judgment was an early decision under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and was also decided under the Canadian Bill of Rights. It had a significant impact on immigration law, human rights law, constitutional law, and administrative law in Canada. The Singh decision resulted in amnesty being granted to tens of thousands of refugee claimants and sweeping reforms which gave Canada one of the most liberal and most expensive refugee systems in the world. The anniversary of the ruling, 4 April, has been observed in Canada as Refugee Rights Day.

The New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority or RSAA, was an independent authority that heard the appeals of people who had been declined refugee status by the Refugee Status Branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service. It was established in 1991, and was replaced by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal in 2010. New Zealand established the RSAA as part of its responsibility to uphold the right of asylum as a result of being a signatory of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol. The decisions of the RSAA are not binding, but have had a significant impact on refugee jurisprudence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian immigration and refugee law</span>

Canadian immigration and refugee law concerns the area of law related to the admission of foreign nationals into Canada, their rights and responsibilities once admitted, and the conditions of their removal. The primary law on these matters is in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, whose goals include economic growth, family reunification, and compliance with humanitarian treaties.

<i>Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the areas of constitutional law and administrative law. The Court held that, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in most circumstances the government cannot deport someone to a country where they risk being tortured, but refugee claimants can be deported to their homelands if they are a serious security risk to Canadians.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Asylum in the United States</span> Overview of the situation of the right for asylum in the United States of America

The United States recognizes the right of asylum for individuals seeking protections from persecution, as specified by international and federal law. People who seek protection while outside the U.S. are termed refugees, while people who seek protection from inside the U.S. are termed asylum seekers. Those who are granted asylum are termed asylees.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case that decided that the standard for withholding of removal, which was set in INS v. Stevic, was too high a standard for applicants for asylum to satisfy. In its place, consistent with the standard set by the United Nations, the Court in held that an applicant for asylum in the United States needs to demonstrate only a "well-founded fear" of persecution, which can be met even if the applicant does not show that he will more likely than not be persecuted if he is returned to his home country.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">War resister</span> Person who resists war

A war resister is a person who resists war. The term can mean several things: resisting participation in all war, or a specific war, either before or after enlisting in, being inducted into, or being conscripted into a military force.

<i>Ahani v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Ahani v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2002] 1 S.C.R. 72; 2002 SCC 2 is a significant decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the areas of constitutional law and administrative law. It is a companion case to Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3. Both cases deal with the procedure for removal of Convention refugees for reasons of national security under the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, and address questions of procedural fairness.

The Immigration and Protection Tribunal is a specialist, independent tribunal established in New Zealand under the Immigration Act 2009 with jurisdiction to hear appeals and applications regarding residence class visas, deportation, and claims to be recognised as a refugee or as a protected person. The Tribunal is administered by the Ministry of Justice and is chaired by a District Court Judge, appointed by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Attorney-General.

Particular social group (PSG) is one of five categories that may be used to claim refugee status according to two key United Nations documents: the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. The other four categories are race, religion, nationality, and political opinion. As the most ambiguous and open-ended of the categories, the PSG category has been the subject of considerable debate and controversy in refugee law. Note that just as with the other four categories, membership in a PSG is not sufficient grounds for being granted refugee status. Rather, to be granted refugee status, one must both demonstrate membership in one of the five categories and a nexus between that membership and persecution one is facing or risks facing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT refugees and asylum seekers in Canada</span>

In Canada, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender (LGBT) or Gender and Sexual Minority (GSM) refugees and asylum-seekers are those who make refugee claims to Canada due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.

<i>Chen Shi Hai v MIMA</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Chen Shi Hai v MIMA, also known as 'Chen' is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>MIMA v Haji Ibrahim</i> Court decision

MIMA v Haji Ibrahim is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>MIMA v Respondents S152/2003</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

MIMAvRespondents S152/2003 is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

References

  1. ↑ SCC Case Information - Docket 21937 Supreme Court of Canada
  2. 1 2 3 Shacter, Ron (July 1, 1997). "The Cases of Ward and Chan". Osgoode Hall Law Journal. 35 (3/4): 725. Retrieved August 27, 2024.
  3. 1 2 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward(Supreme Court of CanadaJune 30, 1993), Text .
  4. 1 2 3 4 Macklin, Audrey (September 1, 1994). "Canada (Attorney-General) v. Ward: A Review Essay". International Journal of Refugee Law. 6 (3): 363–371. doi:10.1093/ijrl/6.3.362 . Retrieved August 27, 2024.
  5. ↑ Refugees in Canada: Canadian refugee and humanitarian immigration policy (PDF) (Report). Canadian Council for Refugees. October 1998. p. 99. Retrieved August 27, 2024.
  6. ↑ Tranter, Linda E. (1993). "A Step Forward in Protecting Human Rights: Canada v. Ward". Refuge: Canada's Journal on Refugees / Refuge: Revue canadienne sur les réfugiés. 13 (4): 16–18. Retrieved August 28, 2024.
  7. ↑ LaViolette, Nicole (1997). "The Immutable Refugees: Sexual Orientation in Canada (A.G.) v. Ward". University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review. 55 (1): 1–4. Retrieved August 28, 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.