Your search

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

In Canada (A.G.) v. Bedford, the Supreme Court of Canada invalidated three prostitution-related provisions of the Criminal Code on grounds of overbreadth and gross disproportionality. The implications of Bedford go well beyond the particular context of sex work and even of criminal law. First, the Court held that the three constitutional norms against overbreadth, arbitrariness, and gross disproportionality are distinct from each other rather than aspects of a single norm against overbreadth. Second, the Court held that a Charter applicant could establish a violation of section 7 by showing that a law is overbroad, arbitrary, or grossly disproportionate in its impact on the life, liberty, or security of only one person and that the effectiveness of the law in achieving its policy objectives was not relevant to these norms. There are some difficulties in understanding this highly individualistic approach to section 7, and those difficulties lead to the third implication. By deferring any consideration of the effectiveness of the law to the question of whether it is a proportional limit on a section 7 right, the Court may be indicating a willingness to do something it has never done before: recognize an infringement of a section 7 right as a justified limit under section 1. The Court’s clarification of the relationship between the norms against overbreadth, arbitrariness, and gross disproportionality is welcome, but its individualistic articulation of those norms is difficult to understand and its suggestion that section 7 violations may now be easier to save under section 1 is troubling.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

The Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America for cooperation in the examination of refugee status claims from nationals of third countries (Safe Third Country Agreement) has been subject to criticism since its adoption. Aimed at addressing asylum shopping, the agreement prevents asylum seekers, who have transited through one country, from applying for asylum in the other, subject to certain exceptions. The fact that the agreement applies only to land border ports of entry has led to an increase in irregular entries into Canada, particularly since 2017. The agreement has been the subject of numerous legal challenges. Against this backdrop, the authors analyze the implementation of the agreement in Canadian law and the issues it raises. They argue that the agreement is counterproductive, as if fails to effectively promote the orderly processing of refugee claims from the United States. They also examine the historical background of the numerous legal challenges to the agreement, including the latest Federal Court decision of 2020 which found that the agreement violates section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that "[e]veryone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." This book analyzes all aspects of section 7. It outlines the place of section 7 in the constitutional order; how courts decide whether a particular legal principle is so fundamental that it merits recognition under section 7; the conditions under which section 7 will apply to a legal dispute; the legal norms that have been recognized, or rejected, as principles of fundamental justice under section 7; and the very limited circumstances in which an infringement of section 7 will be justified under section 1. The second edition has been extensively revised to take into account several significant changes in the law over the last several years, including the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in Bedford (sex work) and Carter (medically assisted dying).

This book offers a comprehensive analysis and comparison of the practice and case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Committee against Torture in the assessment of individual complaints concerning the principle of non-refoulement.

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

Do states have a duty to assimilate refugees to their own citizens? Are refugees entitled to freedom of movement, to be allowed to work, to have access to public welfare programs, or to be reunited with family members? Indeed, is there even a duty to admit refugees at all? This fundamentally rewritten second edition of the award-winning treatise presents the only comprehensive analysis of the human rights of refugees set by the UN Refugee Convention and international human rights law. It follows the refugee's journey from flight to solution, examining every rights issue both historically and by reference to the decisions of senior courts from around the world. Nor is this a purely doctrinal book: Hathaway's incisive legal analysis is tested against and applied to hundreds of protection challenges around the world, ensuring the relevance of this book's analysis to responding to the hard facts of refugee life on the ground.

A political practice and institution found in most civilisations throughout history, asylum in the twenty-first century finds itself in a tumultuous period. The 1951 Refugee Convention regime endures, but many States are trying hard to prevent asylum-seekers from reaching their borders. With refugee resettlement stuck at one per cent of the needs, it is no wonder that refugees finding no other solution to build a future for their family will resort to other means to reach places where they can hope to thrive. Destination States are deploying multiple strategies to avoid being responsible for thousands of refugees. They have thus considerably strengthened their ‘fight’ against undocumented migration and are criminalising asylum-seekers through importing into administrative law concepts and institutions of criminal law, while some have adopted deterrence tactics or implemented ‘externalisation strategies’. They also have devalued the principle of non-refoulement, either through directly refouling or through use of tactics resulting in refoulement. Asylum-seekers are also subjected to biometric identifiers stored in databases interconnected with multiple other databases, nationally and internationally. This chapter explores global trends and challenges in asylum in the twenty-first century and outlines main approaches in the field.

Refugee Law is a concise account of Canadian refugee law, policy, and procedure. It presents refugee law as an independent system, yet one that is open to and influenced by other branches of domestic law, international law, the practices of other jurisdictions, and the general global trends in forced migration. The book examines the historic and contemporary context of refugee law, formal law, and government policy, and the domestic and international principles of refugee protection. The authors seek to provide a solid foundation from which to judge the merits and weaknesses of the existing system, allowing the reader to engage with the ongoing debate, both academic and popular, about the Canadian refugee system.