Mason v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 SCC 21

Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-refoulement Obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol | UNHCR |. (2007). In UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/media/advisory-opinion-extraterritorial-application-non-refoulement-obligations-under-1951

Daly, P. (2022, April 8). Certified Questions, References and Reasonableness: Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Galindo Camayo, 2022 FCA 50. Paul Daly: Administrative Law Matters. https://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2022/04/08/certified-questions-references-and-reasonableness-canada-citizenship-and-immigration-v-galindo-camayo-2022-fca-50/

Daly, P. (2022). Unresolved Issues after Vavilov. Saskatchewan Law Review, 85(1), 89–118. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/sasklr85&i=93

Daly, P. (2021). Vavilov and the Culture of Justification in Contemporary Administrative Law. The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference, 100(1). https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1422

Heckman, G., & Khoday, A. (2019). Once More unto the Breach: Confronting the Standard of Review (Again) and the Imperative of Correctness Review When Interpreting the Scope of Refugee Protection. Dalhousie Law Journal, 42(1), 49–82. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/dalholwj42&i=63

Lambert, H. (2021). Customary Refugee Law. In C. Costello, M. Foster, & J. McAdam (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Refugee Law (p. 0). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198848639.003.0014

Lauterpacht, S. E., & Bethlehem, D. (2003). The scope and content of the principle of non-refoulement: Opinion. In E. Feller, F. Nicholson, & V. Türk (Eds.), Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International Protection (pp. 87–177). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511493973.008

Macklin, A. (2021). Seven Out of Nine Legal Experts Agree: Expertise No Longer Matters (in the Same Way) After Vavilov! The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference, 100(1). https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1420

Mullan, D. (2021). Reasonableness Review Post-Vavilov: An “Encomium for Correctness” or Deference as Usual? Canadian Labour and Employment Law Journal, 23(2), 189–220. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/canlemj23&i=196

Popescu, M. (2021). L’arrêt Vavilov : à la recherche de l’équilibre perdu entre la primauté du droit et la suprématie législative. Les Cahiers de droit, 62(2), 567–604. https://doi.org/10.7202/1077699ar

Yun Liew, J. C. (2020). The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: A Preliminary Assessment of Whether the Vavilov Framework Adequately Addresses Concerns of Marginalized Communities in the Immigration Law Context. Canadian Bar Review, 98(2), 388–419. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/canbarev98&i=388