Rachidi Ekanza Ezokola v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
(Federal) (Civil) (By Leave)
Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.
Immigration Refugee Status Decision of Immigration and Refugee Board excluding appellant from definition of “refugee” as defined in Article 1F(a) of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951,  Can. T.S. No. 6, on basis of complicity by association in war crimes and crimes against humanity Test for complicity For purposes of the application of art. 1F(a) of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, what is the correct legal standard for culpable complicity in international crimes?
The appellant was the economic adviser and second counsellor of embassy to the Permanent Mission of the Democratic Republic of Congo (the “DRC”) to the United Nations starting on December 1, 2004, and held that position until a few days before he arrived in Canada on January 17, 2008 to claim refugee protection, with his wife and eight children. Prior to serving as a diplomat with the DRC’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations, he had been a public servant in the DRC since January 1999, acting principally as an economic advisor. The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the “Board”) determined that the appellant was excluded from refugee protection by application of Article 1F(a) of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the “Convention”) on the basis of complicity by association in war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the DRC. The Federal Court allowed the appellant’s application for judicial review and set aside the Board’s decision on the ground that the Board could not have found serious reasons for considering that the appellant had committed the crimes at issue as a result of his diplomatic duties. The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the test for complicity articulated by the lower court was inconsistent with inter alia the jurisprudence of the Federal Court of Appeal.
- Date modified: