Amnesty International Canada's Legal Work Database

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.

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for Indian status (It is important to note that "Indian" is not a term used by Amnesty International, but rather is an outdated term used in legislation).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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.