Singh v Canada

Last updated

Singh v Canada
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: 30 April, 1 May 1984
Judgment: 4 April 1985
Full case nameSingh v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)
Citations [1985] 1 SCR 177
Docket No.17904 [1]
Court membership
Chief Justice: Brian Dickson
Puisne Justices: Roland Ritchie, Jean Beetz, Willard Estey, William McIntyre, Julien Chouinard, Antonio Lamer, Bertha Wilson, Gerald Le Dain
Reasons given
Plurality(1) Wilson (Dickson and Lamer concurring) (paras. 1–80)
(2) Beetz (Estey and McIntyre concurring) (paras. 81–126)
Ritchie, Chouinard, and Le Dain took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , Canadian Bill of Rights

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.

Contents

Background

Immigration policy

Canada took a strict view on immigration in the early 1970s. At this time the only way for a foreigner already inside Canada to become a permanent resident was through a claim to convention refugee status, and high numbers of claims led the Department of Employment and Immigration to believe that most were taking advantage of the system to stay and work in Canada. The department's resources were strained and there were delays in addressing legitimate cases. To alleviate this, the federal Parliament enacted section 71(1) of the Immigration Act, 1976 , which stated that the Immigration Appeals Board (IAB) could refuse all claims that it believed did not have reasonable grounds on which to establish convention refugee status. Federal courts held that the applicant must demonstrate the probability of their victory in order to obtain a hearing, and this was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in the 1982 case Kwiatkowsky v Minister of Employment and Immigration. [2] : 497–498  [3]

Professor Julius Grey, the unsuccessful lawyer for the appellant in Kwiatkowsky, later stated that there had been immediate controversy over the Supreme Court's decision in Kwiatkowsky, refugee status being an area of law where life and death were concerned, and the summary removal of refugees could violate Canada's international obligations. [2] : 499  The system favoured the interests of the government, and a series of government-commissioned reports released in 1983–1985 [a] found that Canada's refugee determination system was fraught with "irregularities, inconsistencies, and [was] vulnerable to abuse". [4]

Appellants

The appellants in Singh v Canada were seven foreign nationals – six Indian Sikhs and one Guyanese national of Indian descent [b] – who had each attempted to claim convention refugee status under the Immigration Act, 1976 upon arrival in Canada between 1977 and 1980. Their claims were made on the basis that they had a "well-founded fear of persecution" in their home countries, and were denied on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration on the advice of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee (RSAC). [4]

In 1982, following an unsuccessful appeal to the Immigration Appeals Board (IAB), the refugee claimants appealed their deportation orders to the Federal Court of Appeal. They asserted that the procedures of the IAB, in which appeals were made in writing with no opportunity to make their case in person, violated their constitutional rights under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which had been adopted that same year. The court rejected their request for judicial review, [4] on the basis that any threat to "life, liberty or security of the person" was outside of Canada and that section 7 only applied to "...a deprivation of rights by Canadian authorities applying Canadian laws". [2] : 499  [6] The claimants then applied to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal. [4] The Court granted leave on 16 February 1984. [7]

Hearing

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [8]

A panel of seven judges of the Court heard the appeals as a single case on 30 April and 1 May 1984. Several of the appellants were represented by Ian Scott, QC, one of the leading barristers in Ontario. [4] [5] [9]

The major questions to the SCC were: [5]

On 7 December 1984, the Court invited counsel to make written submissions on the application of the Canadian Bill of Rights to the case. [5] [10]

Decision of the Court

On 4 April 1985, the Court gave its decision, unanimously allowing the appeals. One of the justices who had heard the case, Roland Ritchie, (who had retired while the case was on reserve) took no part in the decision. [5] [11] The remaining six justices split evenly in their reasons to allow the appeals. Three justices allowed the appeals under the Charter, while three allowed the appeals under the Bill of Rights: [4]

The court's ruling guaranteed every applicant for refugee status at least one oral hearing, matching the importance of the refugee issue. [2] : 500 

Commentary

Law professor Julius Grey wrote an article commenting on the Singh decision. He stated that the reasons are complementary and each stands as legal authority. [d] Grey described Beetz's reason as more "liberal" (adding that that result was "clearly not intended") since paragraph 2(e) of the Bill of Rights applies to all determinations of rights and obligations, making unnecessary the debates about single or several rights under section 7 of the Charter. He noted Wilson's reasons for her broad interpretation of "security of the person" (which would be violated if a refugee was returned to a country where they might be persecuted [4] ) and for its stance that administrative convenience cannot come before the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. [2] : 503 

Effects

The Supreme Court ruling became known as the Singh decision. It led to Canada's refugee determination system becoming one of the most liberal in the world, but it also became one of the most expensive. [4]

The ruling left the Department of Immigration with what Grey described as "an unbearable backlog and administrative chaos". [2] : 500  It was estimated to cost $3,500 to process each refugee claim and the government determined that it was unable to provide full hearings to the 63,000 refugee claimants who had become legally entitled to such. Accordingly, amnesty was provided to all claimants who had arrived in Canada prior to 21 May 1986, if they did not have a criminal record, were not a security risk, and had passed their medical examinations. Those who were employed or likely to be so were allowed to become permanent residents. [4]

The Plaut Report, which was submitted to the Minister of Employment and Immigration 13 days after the ruling, made recommendations for an equitable refugee determination system including: oral hearings, independent and regional decision-making bodies, and a full appeal process. These recommendations, along with the realities of the Singh decision, led to the creation of the independent Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) in 1989 with hundreds of new officers hired. Nonetheless, the time to process claims extended from months to years. [4]

The decision remains controversial. Refugee advocates see the majority ruling as a progressive response to the obligation to attend to legitimate refugees who require protection. Critics believe the decision has made Canada vulnerable to fraudulent refugee claimants, who overwhelm the system with some becoming improperly admitted and disadvantaging legitimate refugees. [4]

In addition to its effects in immigration, the Singh decision reinforced the associations between constitutional law and administrative law. [2] : 496  The decision's application of the Charter and the Bill of Rights reinforced that fundamental justice is an inherent principle in Canadian law and could not be set aside for administrative convenience. It put forward a "common sense approach" of considering the merits and consequences rather than holding to procedural distinctions, and held that judicial review is a fundamental right for matters having serious consequences. [2] : 503–505 

The anniversary of the ruling, 4 April, has been observed as Refugee Rights Day by the Canadian Council for Refugees and immigration-support groups. [13] [14] [15]

See also

Footnotes

Notes

  1. ↑ These reports on Canada's immigration system are: Illegal Migrants in Canadaa.k.a. Robertson Report, 1983; A New Refugee Status Determination Process for Canada a.k.a. Ratushny Report, 1984; and Refugee Determination in Canada, a.k.a. Plaut Report, 1985. [4]
  2. ↑ The appellants were Satnam Singh, who had his own counsel, and Harbhajan Singh, Sadhu Singh Thandi, Paramjit Singh Mann, Kewal Singh, Charanjit Singh Gill, and Indrani, who were represented by an appointed Queen's Counsel. [5] Satnam Singh had been active in the Khalistan separatist movement. [4] Details of the appellants refugee claims were unimportant to their Supreme Court appeal and are not widely discussed. [2] : 497 
  3. ↑ This broad definition of everyone was taken as it contrasts with other sections of the Charter that use more specific language (e.g.: "Every citizen of Canada" in s. 3 and "Citizens of Canada" in s. 23). [5]
  4. ↑ A later article in the Saskatchewan Law Review by J. T. Irvine on the general topic of evenly divided decisions takes the position that when the Supreme Court divides evenly, neither set of reasons is a binding precedent. [12]

Related Research Articles

In Canadian and New Zealand law, fundamental justice is the fairness underlying the administration of justice and its operation. The principles of fundamental justice are specific legal principles that command "significant societal consensus" as "fundamental to the way in which the legal system ought fairly to operate", per R v Malmo-Levine. These principles may stipulate basic procedural rights afforded to anyone facing an adjudicative process or procedure that affects fundamental rights and freedoms, and certain substantive standards related to the rule of law that regulate the actions of the state.

<i>Egan v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Egan v Canada, [1995] 2 SCR 513 was one of a trilogy of equality rights cases published by the Supreme Court of Canada in the second quarter of 1995. It stands today as a landmark Supreme Court case which established that sexual orientation constitutes a prohibited basis of discrimination under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 SCR 143 is the first Supreme Court of Canada case to deal with the equality rights provided under Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. British law graduate Mark David Andrews challenged the validity of Section 42 of the Barristers and Solicitors Act contending that the Canadian citizenship requirement for being called to the bar violated Section 15 of the Charter.

<i>Reference Re BC Motor Vehicle Act</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Reference Re BC Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 SCR 486, was a landmark reference submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the constitutionality of the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act. The decision established one of the first principles of fundamental justice in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"), beyond mere natural justice, by requiring a fault component for all offences with penal consequences. The decision also proved important and controversial for establishing fundamental justice as more than a procedural right similar to due process, but also protects substantive rights even though such rights were counter to the intent of the initial drafters of the Charter.

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

<i>R v Clay</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Clay [2003] 3 S.C.R. 735, 2003 SCC 75 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of the prohibition to possess marijuana. The accused claimed that his section 7 Charter rights were violated. The Court dismissed the claim.

<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>R v Askov</i> Canadian court case

R v Askov, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199, is a 1990 appeal heard before the Supreme Court of Canada which established the criteria and standards by which Canadian courts judge whether an accused's right to a speedy trial under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 11(b) "to be tried within a reasonable time" has been infringed.

<i>Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the scope of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and on the administrative law principle of natural justice.

<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.

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

Charkaoui v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of procedures for determining the reasonableness of a security certificate and for reviewing detention under a certificate. The Court held that the security certificate process, which prohibited the named individual from examining evidence used to issue the certificate, violated the right to liberty and habeas corpus under section 7, 9 and 10 of the Canadian Charter. The Court however rejected the appellant arguments that the extension of detentions violated the right against indefinite detention, that the differential treatment violated equality rights, and that the detention violated the rule of law. As remedy, the Court declared the "judicial confirmation of certificates and review of detention" to be of no force and effect, striking down articles 33 and 77 to 85 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, but suspended the ruling for one year.

<i>Duke v R</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Duke v R [1972] S.C.R. 917 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the Canadian Bill of Rights, concerning the right of an accused to make full answer and defence to a criminal charge.

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

Canada v Chiarelli, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711 is a leading Canadian case on the constitutionality of the deportation regime. The court held that the deportation a permanent resident who has violated a condition of admission to Canada does not violate any principle of fundamental justice under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>Lavoie v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Lavoie v Canada, [2002] 1 SCR 769, 2002 SCC 23 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on whether preference on basis of citizenship infringed equality guarantee under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court found that the federal Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), which gave preference to citizens when referring to departments, was discriminatory. The violation was saved under section 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limitation on equality rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian administrative law</span> Law governing the government agencies of Canada

Canadian administrative law is the body of law "that applies to all administrative decisions, whether issued by front-line officials, ministers, economic regulatory agencies, or administrative tribunals, with interpretations of law and exercises of discretion subject to the same. .. rules." Administrative law is concerned primarily with ensuring that administrative decision-makers remain within the boundaries of their authority and observe procedural fairness.

<i>Dunsmuir v New Brunswick</i> Canadian Supreme Court case

Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 SCR 190 was, prior to Canada v Vavilov, the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the topic of substantive review and standards of review. Dunsmuir is notable for combining the reasonableness (simpliciter) and the patent unreasonableness standards of review into a single reasonableness standard.

<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 "comparator group" is an element that has been used in Canadian jurisprudence to analyze statutory human rights complaints and claims pursuant to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15 guarantees equality rights and the right to be free from discrimination on certain enumerated grounds.

The idea of ministerial discretion, when employed in Canadian statute law, means the power of a Crown minister to vary or alter the decisions of their bureaucrats, one of their Committees, or one of their Boards. The idea derives from the laws of the United Kingdom, of which Canada, under the rubric of British North America, once was part. The term needs to be written into the statute, as for example in section 51 of the Canadian Oil and Gas Operations Act:

The Governor in Council may at any time, in his discretion, either on petition of any interested person or of his own motion, vary or rescind any decision or order of the Committee made under this Act, whether the order is made between parties or otherwise and any order that the Governor in Council makes with respect thereto becomes a decision or order of the Committee and, subject to section 52, is binding on the Committee and on all parties.

<i>N.V.H v Minister for Justice & Equality</i> Irish Supreme Court case

N.H.V. v Minister for Justice & Equality [2017] IESC 35 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a challenge to the absolute prohibition on employment of asylum seekers contained in Section 9(4) of the Refugee Act 1996 and held it to be contrary to the constitutional right to seek employment.

References

  1. ↑ SCC Case Information - Docket 17904 Supreme Court of Canada
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Grey, Julius H. (1986). "Comment on Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration" (PDF). McGill Law Journal . 31 (4). ISSN   0024-9041. Archived (PDF) from the original on 8 February 2024. Retrieved 23 February 2024.
  3. ↑ Kwiatkowsky v Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1982] 2 SCR 856.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Raska, Jan. "Entrenching Refugee Rights in Canada: The 1985 Singh Decision". Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21. Archived from the original on 1 February 2024. Retrieved 5 February 2024.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985 1 SCR 177](Supreme Court of Canada 4 April 1985), archived from the original.
  6. ↑ Singh v. Canada (Employment & Immigration), 1983 CanLII 4980 (FCA), [1983 2 FC 347], p. 349.
  7. ↑ Leave to appeal granted, [1984] 1 SCR xiii.
  8. ↑ "Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms". Government of Canada. 13 December 2022. Archived from the original on 31 January 2024. Retrieved 23 February 2024.
  9. ↑ "That's History: Ian Scott was advocate and politician", Law Times, 16 October, 2006.
  10. 1 2 "Canadian Bill of Rights". Justice Laws Website. Government of Canada. 6 February 2024. Archived from the original on 13 February 2024. Retrieved 9 February 2024. (e) deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations;
  11. ↑ Supreme Court of Canada: "The Honourable Roland Almon Ritchie".
  12. ↑ Irvine, J. T. (2001). "The Case of the Evenly Divided Court". Saskatchewan Law Review . 64 (1): 219. Retrieved 4 April 2024– via CanLIIDocs 561.
  13. ↑ "Refugee Rights Day, each April 4th". Canadian Council for Refugees. Archived from the original on 23 February 2024. Retrieved 13 February 2024.
  14. ↑ Hanley, Wayne. "Refugee Rights Day – April 4th". United Food and Commercial Workers Canada. Archived from the original on 4 April 2022. Retrieved 13 February 2024.
  15. ↑ "What is Refugee Rights Day?". Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants. 6 April 2023. Archived from the original on 23 February 2024. Retrieved 13 February 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.