Amnesty International Canada's Legal Work Database

A group of Innu claimed Aboriginal land rights to the Nitassinan territory, which overlaps both Quebec and Labrador. They filed an application to the Superior Court of Quebec against two corporations, stating that their activities caused social, cultural, spiritual, and economic damage to their communities. The Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) filed to remove Labrador from this proceeding, claiming that Quebec courts lacked jurisdiction over the aspects of the case concerning Labrador. The Quebec Court of Appeal held that Quebec courts do have jurisdiction, which was then appealed to the Supreme Court. Amnesty International intervened at the Supreme Court to argue that the Court's interpretation of the case should be informed by Canada's international legal obligation to guarantee both an effective remedy and fair and just procedures to Indigenous peoples, as codified in international human rights instruments to which Canada is a party.

Canada underwent the sixth review of its compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in August 2017. Amnesty International's submissions before the Committee highlighted concerns regarding the rights of Indigenous peoples and refugees and migrants. Some issues we noted included the following: the violence faced by Indigenous women and girls, Canada's violation of the land rights of Indigenous peoples, discrimination against Indigenous children, the impact of Canadian transnational corporations on Indigenous rights abroad, insufficient safeguards against arbitrary and indefinite immigration detention, detaining migrant children, and the continued existence of the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement. In 2019, following Canada's interim response, Amnesty International submitted a follow-up submission highlighting renewed concerns with the Site C dam, the Mount Polley mine, immigration detention, and the Safe Third Country Agreement.

Canada underwent its second Universal Periodic Review (UPR) before the UN Human Rights Council in May 2018. Amnesty International provided submissions highlighting our concerns about Canada’s ongoing flawed implementation of human rights obligations. In our submissions, Amnesty International noted Canada’s piecemeal rather than systemic approach to implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and inaction to regulate the human rights impact of Canadian extractive companies abroad and to provide accountability for their activities. We also commented on Canada's lack of recognition of economic, social, and cultural rights. Also of concern are human rights violations against Indigenous peoples, including land rights and methylmercury contamination; the prevalence of gender-based violence, particularly against Indigenous women, girls, and two-spirit people; the arbitrary and unlawful detention of immigrant; denial of health care for undocumented migrants; the exposure of refugee claimants to human rights violations due to the Safe Third Country Agreement; and concerns regarding torture, refoulement, and solitary confinement.

Mr. Chhina, a Pakistani national, was held in immigration detention. His detention was reviewed 12 times, and each time he was ordered detained. Mr. Chhina brought a habeas corpus application to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench which decided to decline jurisdiction to hear his Charter application. The Court held that there was already a statutory mechanism in place for Mr. Chhina to access at the Federal Court through the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the trial judge and ruled that the Court of Queen's Bench improperly declined to hear the application. At the Supreme Court, the issue was whether immigration detainees have the right to bring a habeas challenge to their detention at a provincial superior court. Amnesty International intervened to argue that the right to habeas corpus is protected in international law and that the right extends to detention in not just criminal, but also administrative contexts such as immigration detention. The Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that immigration detainees do, indeed, have a right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention at a provincial superior court through the writ of habeas corpus.

This case concerns the proposed building of a ski resort in the Upper Jumbo Valley in British Columbia, at the heart of an area held by the Ktunaxa Indigeous peoples to be of central spiritual significance. The Ktunaxa Nation Council sought judicial review of the Minister’s decision to approve the project, arguing that approving the ski resort violated their freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) and their right to be consulted and accommodated under section 35 of the Canadian Constitution. Amnesty International’s intervention submissions highlighted that international law accords special protections for Indigenous peoples to ensure substantively equal protection under general international human rights instruments. States must provide a high standard of protection for all rights of Indigenous peoples and Indigenous persons. In particular, international law has established rigorous standards to protect Indigenous peoples’ relationships to their traditional lands, and especially to spiritually important places.

The Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), which came into effect on 29 December 2004, prevents refugees from seeking safe haven in Canada if they are seeking to enter from the United States at a land border, and vice versa. Amnesty International and the other applicants brought an application for judicial review of the STCA before the Federal Court of Canada. We argued that by denying access to Canada as a safe haven for genuine refugees, the application of the STCA can result in their refoulement to persecution and torture by the United States. Further, the agreement adversely impacts on particular groups of refugees in a manner that effectively discriminates on the basis of gender, race, religion, nationality and/or sexual orientation.

Until late 2005 Canada’s policy and practice was to transfer prisoners apprehended in Afghanistan into the custody of US military forces. Amnesty International had consistently opposed that practice out of serious human rights concerns, including the United States’ refusal to recognize the applicability of the Geneva Conventions; concerns about torture and ill-treatment at US military detention sites in Afghanistan; the risk of the death penalty; and the possibility that detainees would be sent to Guantanamo Bay.

In August 2010, the MV Sun Sea, a cargo ship filled with over 500 refugees fleeing violence in Sri Lanka, arrived on the coast of British Columbia. This case concerns several individuals who were passengers on that overcrowded and dilapidated vessel. The individuals in question assisted in various duties to ensure the ship’s passage such as cooking for the other passengers, assisting in navigation, and monitoring the waters for approaching ships. When these refugees arrived in Canada, rather than being offered protection, they were accused of “people smuggling” and deemed inadmissible to Canada – and, in the case of Appulonappa, also charged with the crime of smuggling. The Supreme Court of Canada had to determine whether refugees who mutually assist each other in fleeing persecution, or Good Samaritans or humanitarian organizations who assist refugees to reach safety, should be considered people smugglers and punished through inadmissibility or criminal procedures. In our intervention before the Supreme Court of Canada, Amnesty International argued that “people smuggling” should be interpreted consistently with international law. Under international law, people smugglers are individuals who assist others in crossing borders in order to gain a profit or other material gain. It is the exploitation involved that draws the correct distinction between criminal smugglers who prey off the suffering of refugees, and refugees and Good Samaritans who assist others in fleeing persecution for humanitarian or compassionate reasons.

Bill C-304, the Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act was first introduced as a private member’s bill at the House of Commons in February 2009. The principal change to housing policy brought about by Bill C-304 would be the obligation of the Minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to establish a national housing strategy.