Amnesty International Canada's Legal Work Database

In June 2014, an action was filed by seven Guatemalan men in British Columbia against Canadian company Tahoe Resources for injuries suffered when Tahoe’s security personnel allegedly opened fire on them at close range during a peaceful protest against the company’s mining activities. They accused Tahoe Resources of having expressly or implicitly authorized the use of excessive force against the injured, or of otherwise being negligent in failing to prevent the excessive use of force. The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed the action on the basis of the forum non conveniens doctrine, finding that the case would more appropriately be heard by a Guatemalan court. The plaintiffs appealed the judgment to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Amnesty International intervened before the British Columbia Court of Appeal, arguing that in applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens, Canadian courts can and must consider as a contextual factor international law and norms that emphasize the importance of access to an effective remedy for transnational tort and human rights claims.

This case is brought against Canadian mining company HudBay Minerals and its subsidiaries by Maya-Q’eqchi’ villagers from eastern Guatemala alleging gross human rights abuses by the company in Guatemala in 2007 and 2009. The Maya-Q’eqchi’ opposed the mining project, and claimed they were not consulted by the Guatemalan government in the transfer of land to private interests. The plaintiffs claim that security personnel employed by HudBay’s local subsidiary shot and killed school teacher and anti-mining activist Adolfo Ich Chamán, shot and paralyzed youth Gernam Chub Choc, and gang-raped 11 Maya-Q’eqchi’ women. Because HudBay is a Canadian company, the plaintiffs seek a remedy for the human rights violations in Canadian courts. Amnesty International intervened in this case before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to argue that international law supports the view that a duty of care may exist in circumstances where a parent company’s subsidiary is alleged to be involved in gross human rights abuses.

Mr. Khadr was transferred to Canada on 29 September 2012 under the International Transfer of Offenders Act (ITOA). Upon repatriation to Canada, Correctional Services of Canada (CSC) deemed Mr. Khadr to be serving an adult sentence rather than a youth sentence despite the fact he was only 15 years old when the offences he was alleged to have committed occurred. Mr. Khadr was as a result placed in a maximum security federal penitentiary. Mr. Khadr challenged CSC’s policy and demanded that he be transferred out of the federal penitentiary and into a provincial institution. When CSC denied Mr. Khadr’s request, he brought an application for habeas corpus. In our intervention before the Supreme Court of Canada, Amnesty International argued that the ITOA should be interpreted consistently with principles of international law on the transfer of offenders and the treatment of young offenders and former child solders.

Bill C-389, An Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (Gender Identity and Gender Expression) was a private member’s bill introduced in May 2009. The bill would play an important role in protecting transgender persons from discrimination and gate crimes. The purpose of the bill was to include protections for gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act and as distinguishing characteristics protected under section 318 as well as aggravating factors listed under section 718.2 of the Criminal Code. Amnesty International wrote a brief urging the Prime Minister and Members of Parliament from all parties to support the passage of Bill C-389.

Bill C-31, the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, was tabled in the House of Commons in February 2012. The Bill made several amendments to Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)

Bill C-300, the Corporate Accountability of Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations in Developing Countries Act was a private member’s bill first introduced in the House of Commons in February 2009. Bill C-300 proposed to increase levels of accountability and oversight in Canada for the operations of Canadian extractive companies operating abroad. It would do so by directing the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to issue guidelines that articulate corporate accountability standards for Canadian extractive companies consistent with international human rights instruments, norms, and standards. Amnesty International provided a brief in strong support of Bill C-300 to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Amnesty International has long been concerned about the impact that some companies and other economic actors have on human rights.

Bill C-279, An Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and Criminal Code (Gender Identity) was a private member’s bill introduced in September 2011. The purpose of the Bill was to protect transgender persons from discrimination and hate crimes by including gender identity as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act and by including violence against transgender persons as a hate crime under Canada’s Criminal Code.

Mr. Hassan Diab is a Canadian citizen of Lebanese origin who was subjected to extradition proceedings by the Republic of France in connection with his alleged role in the 1980 bombing of a Paris synagogue. The decision to surrender Mr. Diab to France was challenged by his counsel on a number of grounds, including the risk that Mr. Diab would be denied the right to fundamental justice because France was allegedly relying on anonymous, unsourced, and uncircumstanced evidence that may have been obtained by torture to support its case. Amnesty International intervened to argue that extraditions should take place in accordance with international human rights norms binding on Canada. Accordingly, when there is a real risk that evidence derived from torture will be used in a trial following extradition, the extradition should not take place.

Jeremy Meawasige was, at the time of the case, a First Nations teenager living on the Pictou Landing Indian Reserve in Nova Scotia. He has a number of severe disabilities that require round-the-clock care. His mother, Maurina Beadle, was his primary caregiver until she suffered a stroke in May 2010. The Pictou Landing Band Council stepped in to provide 24-hour home care services to Jeremy since Ms. Beadle was no longer able to. Within eight months, the costs of taking care Jeremy had grown to almost 80% of the Pictou Landing Band Council’s budget for personal and home care services funded by the federal government. The Pictou Landing Band Council approached the federal government to request additional funds to be able to cover Jeremy’s needs, arguing that Jeremy’s case met the definition of Jordan’s Principle. Amnesty International intervened in this case at the Federal Court of Appeal. In our submissions, Amnesty International argued that international human rights law requires Canada to consider the best interests of the child, provide for child health care, protect a child’s family environment, and allow a child to maintain his/her cultural connections – all without discrimination of any kind.