Case information

None.

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.

Charter of Rights – Constitutional Law – Principles of fundamental justice – Immigration and refugees – Pre-removal risk assessment – Whether the prohibition against applying for a pre-removal risk assessment until 36 months after a claim for refugee protection is declared abandoned, as provided by s. 112 (2)(b.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, violates s. 7 of the Charter – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 – Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 112 (2)(b.1).

The applicants are citizens of Israel who sought refugee protection in Canada. Their refugee claims were never decided on their merits because the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board declared their claims to be abandoned. As a result of that declaration, the applicants were unable to obtain a pre-removal risk assessment (“PRRA”) before being removed from Canada; s. 112 (2)(b.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (“IRPA” or “the Act”) precludes access to the PRRA process by individuals from designated countries of origin who have abandoned their refugee claim until 36 months have passed since the date the refugee claim is declared to be abandoned. The applicants brought an application in the Federal Court for declaratory relief, arguing that both their removal from Canada without a full risk assessment being conducted by a competent decision-maker in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, as well as s. 112 (2)(b.1) of the Act, were a violation of the rights guaranteed to them by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They also sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Minister to return them to Canada at the respondents’ expense.

The Federal Court dismissed the applicants’ application, finding that the legislation was neither arbitrary, overbroad, nor grossly disproportionate. The Federal Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the applicants’ appeal, finding that the judge below had made no errors.