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
Canada underwent its first Universal Periodic Review (UPR) before the UN Human Rights Council in February 2009. Amnesty International provided submissions highlighting our concerns with Canada’s failure to ratify or support a number of international human rights instruments; approach to implementing international human rights obligations; and failure to consistently provide disaggregated data about human rights protection. Amnesty International also expressed concern about Canada’s failure to protect the rights of Indigenous peoples, refugees, and migrants, to uphold human rights in counter-terrorism activities and the administration of justice, and to protect economic, social and cultural rights.
Bill 60 was introduced in Quebec’s National Assembly in 2013. The Bill proposed, among other measures, to prohibit employees of the government of Quebec from wearing conspicuous religious symbols. Amnesty International wrote a brief to the National Assembly expressing concern that the proposed Quebec Charter of Values would violate the rights to freedom of religion, expression, assembly, and the right to work. Amnesty International observed that even if Bill 60 contains neutral language, it would have disproportionate effects on women as well as religious and ethnic minorities that wear conspicuous religious symbols such as scarves or veils, depriving them of having access to public participation and important public services.
Manickavasagam Suresh was a refugee from Sri Lanka who applied for landed immigrant status in Canada. In 1994, the government of Canada alleged that he was a security risk to Canada because he was a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, an alleged terrorist organization. Canada detained Mr. Suresh and commenced deportation proceedings. Mr. Suresh argued that he should not be deported because he faced a serious risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. His case made it to the Supreme Court of Canada, which needed to determine whether Canadian law permits deporting individuals to a risk of torture. Amnesty International intervened before the Supreme Court of Canada in Mr. Suresh’s case.
This case was brought by a number of individuals who have experienced homelessness and inadequate housing in Ontario and Canada. They argued that the provincial and federal governments’ failure to devise and implement a strategy to reduce homelessness and inadequate housing violated their rights to life, to security of the person, and to equality under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen and father of two, was travelling home to Canada after visiting his wife’s family in Tunisia in 2002. While changing planes at New York City’s JFK airport, he was detained and held for 12 days by US authorities. He was then transferred secretly, via Jordan, to Syria, where he was held in degrading and inhumane conditions, interrogated, and tortured for a year. Amnesty international was granted intervener status at Arar Inquiry. We also intervened as amicus curiae before the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Tsilhqot’in First Nation is a semi-nomadic grouping of six bands who have lived in a remote valley in central British Columbia for centuries. They went to court more than 20 years ago to protect their traditional land, which British Columbia had targeted for intensive logging. The case made it up to the Supreme Court of Canada, which was tasked with determining whether the Tsilhqot’in peoples had established (1) their right to use their traditional territory for traditional activities; and (2) title over the disputed territory. Amnesty International co-intervened in this case with the Canadian Friends Service Committee. In our intervention, we argued that the Canadian framework for Aboriginal title under section 35 of the Canadian constitution – which protects Aboriginal people’s rights – should be interpreted and applied consistently with international human rights law. Accordingly, Amnesty International and the Canadian Friends Service Committee argued that the Supreme Court of Canada should adopt an approach to section 35 that advances the goal of genuine reconciliation.
Amnesty International published a legal brief in advance of former US President George W Bush’s planned visit to Canada in October 2011. The facts presented in the brief are sufficient to give rise to mandatory obligations for Canada under international law, should former President Bush enter Canadian territory, to: launch a criminal investigation; arrest former President Bush or otherwise secure his presence during that investigation; and submit the case to competent authorities in Canada for the purpose of prosecution if it does not extradite him to another state able and willing to do so.
This case concerned two Canadians who suffered terrible injuries – leading to death in one case – while vacationing in Cuba. Mr. Van Breda and Mr. Charron’s family brought a civil action in Ontario against Club Resorts Ltd, the company that managed the two hotels the men were staying in when the accidents occurred. The courts needed to determine whether the plaintiffs had a “real and substantial connection” to Ontario sufficient to establish jurisdiction in Ontario over the cases. The Court of Appeal for Ontario noted the emergence of the doctrine of “forum of necessity” in Canadian and European law recognizing that overriding considerations of fairness and the need to ensure access to justice may justify the assumption of jurisdiction in the absence of a real and substantial connection. Amnesty International co-intervened before the Supreme Court of Canada in the Van Breda case with the Canadian Centre for International Justice and Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights. We argued that the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s recognition of the forum of necessity doctrine is a positive development that harmonizes Ontario law with well-recognized national and international standards of jurisdiction and access to justice.
The plaintiffs in this case all were detained and tortured by Chinese authorities as part of their crackdown on practitioners of the spiritual practice of Falun Gong. Following their release, they moved to Canada in order to escape further persecution in China. One of the plaintiffs was a Canadian citizen at the time of his torture. In 2004, they brought a joint civil action before the Ontario Superior Court of justice against then Chinese leader Jiang Zemin and other officials of the Chinese Communist Party for ordering their torture. Amnesty International co-intervened in this case with the Canadian Centre for International Justice (CCIJ) to argue that under international human rights law torture survivors have a right to obtain fair and adequate compensation for their ill-treatment. The State Immunity Act cannot be relied on to immunize foreign authorities for serious human rights violations such as torture.
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.
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4