Amnesty International Canada's Legal Work Database

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.

BILL C-11, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, was introduced in the House of Commons in March 2010. The Bill introduced a number of amendments into the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act that the government purported would make the refugee determination process in Canada “fast, fair, and efficient” Bill C-11:

Bill C-43, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, was tabled in the House of Commons in June 2012. The Bill follows Canada’s practice of preferring exclusion or deportation over extradition or prosecution. It proposes amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act allowing the Minister, on his or her own initiative, to declare that any foreign national may not enter Canada for a period of three years if – in the Minister’s opinion – it is justified on the basis of public policy considerations. Bill C-43 eliminates humanitarian relief and appeal procedures for certain kinds of criminals and suspected criminals, which facilitates their removal but also hinders efforts to hold them accountable for their conduct.

Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015, was tabled at the House of Commons in January 2015. The Bill contains the most comprehensive reforms to Canada’s national security laws since 2001. In our detailed legal brief to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, Amnesty International highlighted a number of troubling changes introduced by Bill C-51, including: unprecedented new powers granted to Canadian Security Intelligence Service officers to act to reduce security threats; a new criminal offence of advocating or promoting the commission of terrorism offences "in general"; expanded powers to detain a person on the basis of a recognizance with conditions; expansive information-sharing across government departments and agencies in the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act; new procedures in the Secure Air Travel Act for individuals placed on "no fly" lists; and lack of review or oversight.

This case arises from changes made by the federal government to Canada’s Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) in 2012. The changes resulted in a new, tiered system of health benefits which denied many asylum seekers and other persons in need of protection losing access to necessary health care such as insulin for juvenile diabetes, chemotherapy and anti-nausea drugs, allergy and asthma medication, urgent eye surgery, antiretroviral medication, and care during child birth. A number of individual claimants as well as three organizations granted public interest standing – Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, and Justice for Children and Youth – brought a challenge to the constitutionality of the funding cuts to the IFHP. They argued that the changes to the program violated the right to life and security of the person, the right to be free from discrimination, and that they constituted cruel and unusual treatment. In our joint intervention with ESCR-Net, Amnesty International argued that international law binding on Canada requires the government to guarantee the right to life by ensuring that all persons have access to the basic necessities of life, including health care.

Omar Khadr is a Canadian citizen who in 2002 was captured by American forces in Afghanistan. He had found himself in a fire fight and allegedly threw a grenade which resulted in the death of a US soldier. Mr. Khadr was 15 years old at the time. He was detained, interrogated, and sent to Guantanamo Bay, where he spent the next decade. In 2005, Mr. Khadr was declared an enemy combatant and the US laid formal charges against him. He was to be tried before a Military Commission. In preparing his defense, Khadr sought an order from the Supreme Court of Canada requiring Canadian officials who interviewed him in Guantanamo Bay to disclose all records they had provided to American officials stemming from those interviews. The Supreme Court of Canada ordered that the government disclose that information to Mr. Khadr. Following the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment recognizing that Mr. Khadr’s Charter and international human rights had been violated at Guantanamo Bay, Mr. Khadr made repeated requests to the Canadian government to seek his repatriation to Canada. Amnesty International applied to intervene in Mr. Khadr’s case before the Federal Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada.

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.