Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||
| Hearing: April 30, May 1, 1984 Judgment: April 4, 1985 |
|||||
|
|||||
| Court membership | |||||
|
Chief Justice: Brian Dickson |
|||||
| Reasons given | |||||
|
Majority by: Wilson J. |
|||||
Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177 is a leading Constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court held that foreign nationals are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Contents |
[edit] Background
Between 1977 and 1980, Harbhajan Singh and six other Sikh foreign nationals attempted to claim convention refugee status under the Immigration Act, 1976 on the basis that they had a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country. They were denied status by the Minister of Employment and Immigration on the advice of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee.
The seven foreign nationals challenged the adjudication procedures under the Immigration Act on the basis that it violated section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and violated section 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. The government claimed that since they had no status within the country they were not subject to the Charter.
[edit] Opinion of the Court
In a three to three decision[1] the Court found that the seven foreign nationals were protected by the Charter and their rights had been violated. Justice Bertha Wilson wrote the decision based on section 7 rights to security of person and fundamental justice. She also found the government's claim that giving hearing to refugees would be burdensome was too much of an administrative concern to justify infringing a Charter right.
The second half of the Court also found in favour of the rights claimants, but through section 2(e) of the Bill of Rights. Justice Jean Beetz, writing for this half of the Court, noted that section 26 of the Charter states that rights outside the Charter are not invalid, and hence the Bill of Rights still has a role to play in Canadian law. Beetz went on to find that in this case, refugees had been denied hearings, and thus their section 2(e) rights to fair hearings and fundamental justice were infringed.
[edit] Aftermath
Following the Supreme Court decision, the number of hearings needed for refugees has caused massive delays in the Immigration Department.[2] The number of refugee cases receiving legal aid was also increased, with 1,610 cases in Ontario in 1989 rising to 15,247 cases in 1990 in that province.[3]
[edit] Notes
- ^ in the case of a tie the Chief Justice is the deciding vote.
- ^ Dyck, Rand. Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches. Third ed. (Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Thomson Learning, 2000), p. 438.
- ^ Morton, F.L. and Rainer Knopff. The Charter Revolution & the Court Party. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2000, page 101.
[edit] See also
[edit] External link
 |
This article about Canadian law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
