Amnesty International Canada's Legal Work Database
In addition to its monitoring work and public campaigns, Amnesty International is very involved in legal work to ensure that the Canadian and provincial governments are acting consistently with their international human rights obligations. Amnesty’s legal work frequently involves the themes of the rights of Indigenous Peoples, security and human rights, the rights of refugees and migrants, and corporate accountability, among others.
To learn more about Amnesty's legal work, click here.
Search our legal work database, below, containing legal briefs, court decisions, and other contextual documents such as media releases.
Legal Briefs - Legal Briefs
The provincial governments of Saskatchewan and Ontario challenged the legality of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (2018) on the grounds that the federal government is outside its constitutional jurisdiction by enacting this legislation. These challenges were rejected by the respective provincial Courts of Appeal and are now being heard at the Supreme Court of Canada. Amnesty International intervened in this case to argue that Canada’s compliance with international law and international environmental and human rights obligations, which are affected by climate change, should be considered in the interpretation of the constitutional division of powers.
Environnement Jeunesse, a Montreal-based youth environmental organization, filed an application for authorization to bring a class action lawsuit against the Canadian government on behalf of all Quebecers under age 35, arguing that the Canadian government is violating the rights of their generation due to its inaction against the climate crisis and its noncompliance with international environmental agreements. The Quebec Superior Court rejected their application on procedural grounds, and EnJeu is now appealing this decision to the Quebec Court of Appeal. Amnesty International is intervening to ensure that the Court interprets Canadian and Quebec law in accordance with Canada’s international human rights obligations with respect to the rights of children and the right to an effective remedy.
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). Amnesty International's submission emphasized that Bill C-31 runs counter to Canada’s international legal obligations with respect to refugees. The Bill permits discriminatory sanctions, arbitrary detention, denial of due process rights to have detention reviewed and access to appeal mechanisms, and denial of access to fair refugee determination procedures and thus should be withdrawn.
Two individuals brought a human rights challenge against discriminatory provisions in the Indian Act that enshrine in law discriminatory treatment based on sex for the purposes of who can register for Indian status (It is important to note that "Indian" is not a term used by Amnesty International, but rather is an outdated term used in legislation). This challenge was brought before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which ruled that the challenge is properly brought before a court under the Charter and not, as the individuals did, before the Tribunal. The individuals in this case were two groups of people who either had Indian status that they could not pass on to their children, or who were not eligible to get status at all.
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.
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.
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.
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 the seventh review of its compliance to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in November 2018. Amnesty International’s submissions primarily emphasised concerns about a variety of ways in which Canadian action or inaction risks complicity in torture or other ill-treatment, through such means as inadequate efforts to protect Indigenous women and girls from violence and forced sterilisation, diplomatic assurances and prisoner transfers, the violent policing of indigenous protests, barriers to obtaining civil redress faced by victims of torture who were detained abroad, solitary confinement, immigration detention, and concerns with refugee protection in light of the Safe Third Country Agreement and Canada’s failure to adopt the universal prohibition against refoulement.
Canada underwent its sixth review of its compliance to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights before the UN Human Rights Committee in July 2015. Amnesty International was one of 26 civil society organizations to provide written submissions to the Human Rights Committee, representative of the great level of concern with the state of protection of civil and political rights in Canada. Amnesty International provided written submissions at two stages of the review process: to assist the Human Rights Committee in setting out its list of issues it would examine during the review, and submissions for the review itself. Amnesty International’s submissions highlighted concerns that Canada has failed to institute a transparent, effective, and accountable system for ensuring full and proper implementation of Canada’s international human rights obligations.
Amnesty International submitted to the House of Commons Standing Committee that forced and/or coerced sterilization in Canada is a serious human rights violation that disproportionately impacts Indigenous women, girls, and two-spirit persons. This practice is considered torture under the UN Convention Against Torture, something that has been urgently flagged in the most recent review of Canada by the UN Committee against Torture. Amnesty International, along with other organizations including Indigenous women’s organizations, called on the federal government to take urgent action.
In November 2014, three Eritrean plaintiffs launched a lawsuit against Nevsun Resources, a mining company headquartered in Vancouver. In their statement of claim to the British Columbia Superior Court, the plaintiffs alleged gross human rights violations at a mine owned by Nevsun through a partially owned subsidiary in Eritrea. The plaintiffs alleged that they were victims of forced labour and torture among other serious human rights abuses. The company brought motions to stay, dismiss or strike the plaintiffs’ claims. The BC Supreme Court ruled for the plaintiffs, as did the BC Court of Appeal. The question before the Supreme Court of Canada is whether the lawsuit should not be allowed to proceed under the “act of state” doctrine, and whether the plaintiffs should be able to ground a civil suit in the breach of customary international law. Amnesty International’s intervention, along with the International Commission of Jurists, is focused on the right to remedy.
In 2007, a complaint that the Assembly of First Nations and the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society had brought to the Canadian Human Rights Commission was referred for a hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, alleging that the underfunding of child welfare services for children living on reserves is discriminatory under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA). Amnesty International intervened in the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society Case at the Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeal and Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
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.
Bill C-97, the Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, made several amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). Clause 306 amends the IRPA to add a ground of ineligibility for a claim to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). Under this provision, a claim will be ineligible if the claimant has made a previous claim for protection in another country with which Canada has an information-sharing agreement. Amnesty International’s submissions to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration emphasised that such an amendment would violate Canada’s international obligations under the Refugee Convention, would create a troubling two-tier system of refugee protection, and would have Canada rely on the refugee status determination procedures of countries whose approach to refugee protection is not consistently compliant with international refugee law.
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.
Canada underwent its sixth review of its compliance to International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in February 2012. Amnesty International provided written submissions to the Committee. Our submissions drew attention to Amnesty International’s concerns with respect to the rights of Indigenous peoples, refugees and migrants, and racial discrimination in the context of national security laws and practices.
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.
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.
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.