Pushpanathan v. Can. (M.C.I.) (1998), 226 N.R. 201 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Temp. Cite: [1998] N.R. TBEd. JN.005
Veluppillai Pushpanathan (Pushpanathan Veluppillai) (appellant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent) and The Canadian Council for Refugees (intervener)
(25173)
Indexed As: Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Supreme Court of Canada
L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka*, Gonthier,
Cory, McLachlin, Major and Bastarache, JJ.
June 4, 1998.
Summary:
In 1985, Pushpanathan, a citizen of Sri Lanka, came to Canada and claimed Convention refugee status. He was subsequently convicted of conspiracy to traffic in heroin contrary to the Narcotic Control Act and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. In 1993 the Immigration and Refugee Board (Refugee Division) determined that he was excluded from claiming Convention refugee status because of art. 1F(c) of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Article 1F(c) provided that the Convention did not apply to those guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Pushpanathan applied for judicial review.
The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application. The court, however, certified the following question for consideration by the Court of Appeal:
“Is it an error of law for the Refugee Division to interpret section F(c) of Article I of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees to exclude from refugee status an individual guilty of a serious Narcotic Control Act offence committed in Canada?”
The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 191 N.R. 247, answered the question in the negative and therefore dismissed the appeal. Pushpanathan appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal holding that conspiracy to traffic in a narcotic by Pushpanathan was not a violation of article 1F(c). The court returned the matter to the Convention Refugee Determination Division for consideration under art. 33 of the Convention and ss. 19 and 53 of the Immigration Act.
*Sopinka, J., took no part in the judgment.
Administrative Law – Topic 3202
Judicial review – Scope of review – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the factors to be taken into account in determining the standard of review – See paragraphs 29 to 50.
Aliens – Topic 2
Legislation – Interpretation – The United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, art. 1F(c), provided that the Convention did not apply to those guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations – The Immigration Act (Can.) adopted this article as part of the definition of “Convention Refugee” – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the principles of treaty interpretation applicable to interpreting art. 1F(c) and the relevance of “travaux préparatoiries” – See paragraphs 51 to 64.
Aliens – Topic 1330.4
Admission – Refugees – Disqualifications – Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations – The United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, article 1F(c), provided that the Convention was not applicable to persons guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the purpose of article 1F(c) – See paragraphs 51 to 64 – The court stated the purpose of article 1F(c) could be characterized as: “to exclude those individuals responsible for serious, sustained or systemic violations of fundamental human rights which amount to persecution in a non-war setting” – See paragraph 64.
Aliens – Topic 1330.4
Admission – Refugees – Disqualifications – Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations – The United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, article 1F(c), provided that the Convention was not applicable to persons guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed what acts fell within article 1F(c) – See paragraphs 65 to 76.
Aliens – Topic 1330.4
Admission – Refugees – Disqualifications – Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations – The United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, art. 1F(c), provided that the Convention was not applicable to persons guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations – A refugee claimant, who was convicted of a Canadian narcotics offence (i.e., conspiracy to traffic in narcotics), argued he should not be excluded under art. 1F(c) – The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the refugee claimant, holding that his conspiracy to traffic in a narcotic was not a violation of article 1F(c) – See paragraphs 1 to 76.
Aliens – Topic 1330.4
Admission – Refugees – Disqualifications – Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations – The United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, art. 1F(c), as adopted by the Immigration Act, provided that the Convention did not apply to those guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations – The following question respecting art. 1F(c) was certified for consideration by the Federal Court of Appeal: “Is it an error of law for the Refugee Division to interpret section F(c) of Article I of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees to exclude from refugee status an individual guilty of a serious Narcotic Control Act offence committed in Canada?” – The Federal Court of Appeal answered the question in the negative – The Supreme Court of Canada set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal – See paragraphs 1 to 76.
Aliens – Topic 1334
Admission – Refugees – Appeals or judicial review – Scope of review – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the standard of review applicable to decisions of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board – The court held that a correctness standard applied to determinations of law by the Board – See paragraphs 23 to 50, 82.
Aliens – Topic 4069
Practice – Judicial review – Appeals – Certification of serious question of general importance by Trial Division – Section 83(1) of the Immigration Act provided that “a judgment of the Federal Court – Trial Division on an application for judicial review . . . may be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal only if the Federal Court – Trial Division has at the time of rendering judgment certified that a serious question of general importance is involved and has stated that question” – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “the certification of a ‘question of general importance’ is the trigger by which an appeal is justified. The object of the appeal is still the judgment itself, not merely the certified question.” – See paragraph 25.
Words and Phrases
Contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations
– The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the purpose and interpretation of this phrase as it was used in art. 1F(c) of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as adopted by s. 2 of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 – See paragraphs 51 to 76.
Cases Noticed:
Pasiechnyk et al. v. Procrane et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 890; 216 N.R. 1; 158 Sask.R. 81; 153 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 26].
Pasiechnyk v. Worker’s Compensation Board (Sask.) – see Pasiechnyk et al. v. Procrane et al.
Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l’Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, Local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244; 35 Admin. L.R. 153, refd to. [para. 27].
Union des employés de service, Local 298 v. Bibeault – see Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l’Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, Local 298 (FTQ).
Bibeault – see Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l’Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, Local 298.
U.E.S., Local 298 v. Bibeault – see Union des employés de service.
Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 27].
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 579 v. Bradco Construction Ltd., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 316; 153 N.R. 81; 106 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 140; 334 A.P.R. 140, refd to. [para. 30].
Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 34].
National Corn Growers’ Association et al. v. Canadian Import Tribunal, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1324; 114 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 34].
Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 37].
Yuen v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J. No. 1045 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].
Franco v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J. No. 1011 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].
Sornalingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 107 F.T.R. 128 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 40].
Vetter v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1994), 89 F.T.R. 17 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 40].
Ismaeli v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1995] F.C.J. No. 573 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 40].
Connor et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 95 F.T.R. 66 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 40].
Sivasamboo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1994] F.C. 741; 87 F.T.R. 46 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 41].
Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825; 195 N.R. 81; 171 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 437 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 45].
Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 – see Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al.
University of British Columbia v. Berg, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 353; 152 N.R. 99; 26 B.C.A.C. 241; 44 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 45].
Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689; 153 N.R. 321, refd to. [paras. 46, 134].
Thomson v. Thomson, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 551; 173 N.R. 83; 97 Man.R.(2d) 81; 79 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 53].
Moreno and Sanchez v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1994] 1 F.C. 298; 159 N.R. 210 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].
Sivakumar v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1994] 1 F.C. 433; 163 N.R. 197 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Re, [1990] I.C.J. Reports 3, refd to. [para. 67].
Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Re, [1971] I.C.J. Reports 4, refd to. [para. 67].
Statutes Noticed:
Charter of the International Military Tribunal, 82 U.N.T.S. 280, generally [para. 59].
Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, sect. 2(1) [para. 5]; sect. 19(1)(c) [para. 10]; sect. 53(1) [para. 9]; sect. 67(1) [para. 39]; sect. 82.1(1) [para. 39]; sect. 83(1) [paras. 24, 39].
United Nations, Charter, Can. T.S. 1945 No. 7, preamble [para. 62]; art. 1 [paras. 62, 126]; art. 1(3) [para. 124]; art. 2 [paras. 62, 126].
United Nations, Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, U.N. Doc. E/Conf.82/15, December 19, 1988, generally [para. 112 et seq.]; art. 3 [para. 151]; art. 3(5) [para. 152].
United Nations, Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Can. T.S. 1987 No. 36, art. 3(1) [para. 155].
United Nations, Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1019 U.N.T.S. 175, February 21, 1971, generally [para. 109].
United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Can. T.S. 1969 No. 6, art. 1F(c) [para. 6]; art. 33 [para. 8].
United Nations, Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (G.A. Res. 2625 (XXV), 24 October 1970, Annex [para. 126].
United Nations Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, G.A. Res. 47/133, December 18, 1992, art. 1(1) [paras. 66, 121]; art. 8 [para. 155].
United Nations Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, G.A. Res. 3452 (XXX), December 9, 1975, art. 2 [paras. 66, 120].
United Nations Declaration to Supplement the 1994 Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, G.A. Res. 51/210, January 16, 1997, Annex [paras. 66, 121]; art. 2 [paras. 66, 121, 149].
United Nations, Draft Articles of the Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind, UN Doc. A/46/405, September 11, 1991, 30 I.L.M. 1584, generally [para. 140], art. 25(1) [para. 153].
United Nations, Draft Convention against Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and Related Activities, G.A. Res. 39/141, December 14, 1984, Annex [para. 146]; art. 2 [para. 146].
United Nations, Draft Statute of the International Criminal Court, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/L.491/Rev.2, generally [para. 70].
United Nations, Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, 520 U.N.T.S. 204, generally [para. 109].
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Can. T.S. 1980 No. 37, art. 31 [para. 52]; art. 32 [para. 52].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Bassiouni, M.C., Critical Reflections on International and National Control of Drugs (1990), 18 Denv. J. Int’l L. & Pol’y 311, pp. 323, 324 [para. 106]; 327 [para. 99].
Bassiouni, M.C., International Criminal Law (1986), vol. 1, pp. 135, 136 [paras. 72, 123]; 137-163 [para. 72].
Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, An Examination of Recidivism in Relation to Offence Histories and Offender Profiles (1993), p. 21 [para. 87].
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, The Costs of Substance Abuse in Canada: Highlights (1996), pp. 2, 6 [para. 90].
Canadian Crime Statistics 1993, p. 52 [para. 84].
Canadian Crime Statistics 1994, p. 16 [para. 84].
Collected Travaux Préparatoires of the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, vol. III, p. 89 [para. 73].
Crane, P., An Introduction To Administrative Law (3rd Ed. 1996), p. 35 [para. 36].
Goodwin-Gill, G.S., The Refugee in International Law (2nd Ed. 1996), pp. 107 [para. 73]; 108 [para. 61]; 110, 113 [para. 68].
Grahl-Madsen, A., The Status of Refugees in International Law (1966), vol. 1, p. 286 [para. 68].
Hathaway, J.C., The Law of Refugee Status (1991), pp. 215 [para. 51]; 229 [para. 68].
Joyner, C.C., The United Nations and International Law (1997), pp. 362, 363, 369, 370 [para. 140].
Juristat, vol. 14, No. 6, 1994, pp. 5 [para. 85]; 9 [para. 86]; 11 [para. 87]; 12 [paras. 85, 87].
Juristat, vol. 17, No. 8, 1997, p. 10 [paras. 84, 86].
Kindred, H.M., International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied in Canada (1993), p. 448 [para. 60].
McKenzie D., and Single, E., Canadian Profile 1997: Licit and Illicit Drugs (1997), generally [para. 83].
Motiuk, L.L., and Belcourt, R.L., Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada, Homicide, Sex, Robbery and Drug Offenders in Federal Corrections: An End-of-1996 Review (1997), p. 13 [para. 84].
Murphy, J.F., International Crimes, in C.C. Joyner, ed., The United Nations and International Law (1997), pp. 362, 363, 369, 370 [para. 140].
Sproule, D.W., and St-Denis, P., The UN Drug Trafficking Convention: An Ambitious Step, [1989] Canadian Yearbook of International Law 263, p. 263 [para. 112].
Stewart, D.P., Internationalizing The War on Drugs: The UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1990), 18 Denv. J. Int’l L. & Pol’y 387, pp. 388 [para. 113]; 390 [para. 110].
United Nations, Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Economic and Social Consequences of Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking: An Interim Report, UN Doc. E/CN.7/1995/3, November 9, 1994, pp. 8 [para. 94]; 14 [para. 92]; 19, 20 [para. 95]; 24 [para. 96]; 25 [paras. 96, 97]; 26 [paras. 97, 98]; 28 [para. 98]; 29 [paras. 99, 100]; 30 [para. 100]; 32 [para. 100]; 33 [para. 101, 102]; 34 [para. 102]; 35 [para. 103]; 36 [para. 104].
United Nations, Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Reduction of Illicit Demand for Drugs: Prevention Strategies Including Community Participation — World situation with respect to drug abuse: Report of the Secretariat, UN Doc. E/CN.7/1995/5, January 10, 1995, pp. 3 [paras. 92, 93]; 4 [para. 92].
United Nations, Comprehensive Multidisciplinary Outline of Future Activities in Drug Abuse Control, 26 I.L.M. 1638, generally [para. 111].
United Nations, Department of Public Information, Drug Trafficking and the World Economy (1990), generally [para. 99].
United Nations, Final Act of the United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, UN Doc. E/Conf.82/14, para. 7 [para. 112].
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, generally [paras. 53, 54, 62]; para. 162 [paras. 61, 68]; para. 163 [paras. 61, 68].
United Nations, International Conference on Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking: Decisions of the Conference, June 26, 1987, 26 I.L.M. 1637, generally [para. 111].
United Nations, International Drug Control Programme, World Drug Report (1997), pp. 17 [para. 105]; 18 [para. 93]; 86, 91 [para. 92]; 123 [para. 94]; 128 [para. 105].
United Nations, International Law Commission’s Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind (Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, UN Doc. A/51/10), chapter 2, generally [para. 140].
United Nations, International Law Commission’s Report re its 42nd session, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1990/Add.1 (Part 2), [1990] Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol. II, Part Two, p. 30 [para. 153].
United Nations, Renewing the United Nations: A Programme for Reform, UN Doc. A/51/950, July 14, 1997, paras. 143, 144, 145 [para. 115].
United Nations, Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, E/RES/1989/65, May 24, 1989, art. 5 [para. 155].
United States, Bureau of Drug Statistics, Drugs and Crime Facts, 1994, p. 26 [para. 87].
Counsel:
Lorne Waldman and Jaswinder Singh Gill, for the appellant;
Urszula Kaczmarczyk and Bonnie Boucher, for the respondent;
David Matas and Sharryn Aiken, for the intervener.
Solicitors of Record:
Waldman & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;
George Thomson, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent;
David Matas, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervener.
This appeal was heard on October 9, 1997, before L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Major and Bastarache, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered on June 4, 1998, in both official languages, including the following opinions:
Bastarache, J. (L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 77;
Cory, J., dissenting (Major, J., concurring) – see paragraphs 78 to 158.
Sopinka, J., took no part in the judgment.
