The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision today on the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) is a complex result that ultimately fails refugees.  The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal in part, sending the equality rights issue at stake back to the Federal Court,  and holding out for the possibility of the agreement being declared unconstitutional. But the Canadian Council for Refugees, Amnesty International Canada, and the Canadian Council of Churches are disappointed that the Supreme Court of Canada failed to decisively rule that the Safe Third Country Agreement violates refugees’ rights, exposing refugee claimants to further harms while awaiting another legal challenge.
… Read more » … lire la suite »

It will likely be months before refugee advocates, including the Canadian Council of Churches, know whether they have prevailed at the Supreme Court. But for now, council general secretary Rev. Peter Noteboom is satisfied that the argument to strike down the Safe Third Country Agreement between the United States and Canada has been heard.
… Read more » … lire la suite »

As Canada’s Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States goes back before the Supreme Court of Canada Oct. 6, Ottawa has revealed a surge of 23,358 asylum seekers at irregular border crossings in the first eight months of 2022.

That’s 13-per-cent more than all of 2017, when the flood of refugees at Quebec’s Roxham Road crossing from New York captured headlines.
… Read more » … lire la suite »

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed that government actors have a duty to specifically consider religious freedom concerns when raised by claimants in its Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia decision. This historic case – the first Indigenous religious freedom claim to be heard by the Supreme Court – raised questions about the scope of religious freedom, and the means by which religious communities can practise and manifest their faith. Christian Legal Fellowship (CLF) and The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) jointly intervened in the case.

The litigation arose from a proposed ski resort on land that is sacred to the Ktunaxa people. The Ktunaxa Nation opposed the development on the basis that it would desecrate the sacred site and would interfere with a variety of their spiritual practices.

The British Columbia Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources approved the development but did not specifically address how the decision would impact the Ktunaxa Nation’s section 2(a) Charter right to freedom of religion.

The Supreme Court upheld the Minister’s ultimate decision; however, the Court was divided 7-2 on some of their underlying reasons.
… Read more » … lire la suite »