Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Hearing: October 9, 1997
Judgment: June 4, 1998


Full case name:	Veluppillai Pushpanathan v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Citations:	[1998] 1 S.C.R. 982
Ruling:	Appeal Allowed.

Court membership

Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer
Puisne Justices: Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache

Reasons given

Majority by: Bastarache J.
Joined by: L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and McLachlin JJ.
Dissent by: Cory J.
Joined by: Major J.

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the standard of review in Canadian administrative law. The Court held that a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board should be reviewed on the standard of "correctness".

1 Background
2 Issues
3 Opinion of the Court
4 External links

[edit] Background

Veluppillai Pushpanathan arrived in Canada seeking refugee status from his native country of Sri Lanka. The claim was never settled as he eventually got permanent resident status. After some time, Pushpanathan was arrested in Canada and convicted of conspiracy to traffic in a narcotic. He was sent to prison and was eventually paroled. He tried to renew his refugee claim but a conditional deportation order was issued. The Immigration and Refugee Board denied his application as his criminal record violted art. 1F(c) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Pushpanathan appealed the decision of the Board. The major question concerned what standard of review should be applied to the Board's decision.

[edit] Issues

1. What is the standard of review to be applied to the Immigration and Refugee Board's decision regarding Pushpanathan.

2. How do the rules of treaty interpretation apply to the determination of the meaning of Article 1F(c) of the UN Refugee Convention?

3. Does Pushpanathan's act of drug trafficking fall within the definition of "acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations"?

[edit] Opinion of the Court

Justice Bastarache, writing for the majority, found that the conviction did not violate the Convention and sent the matter to the Convention Refugee Determination tribunal.

Bastarache reaffirmed the criteria for determining standard of review. He noted that since the issue is "a serious question of general importance" there is no other standard but that of "correctness".