Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Supreme Court of Canada
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. (paras. 1-77) Joined by: L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and McLachlin JJ. Dissent by: Cory J. (paras. 78-158) 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".

Contents 1 Background 2 Issues 3 Judgment of the Court 3.1 Standard of review 3.2 Article 1F(c) 3.3 Traifficking 4 References 5 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] Judgment 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.

[edit] Standard of review

Bastarache noted that even though the lower courts did not address it, the standard of review must be established before considering the other issues.^[1] He reviewed the "pragmatic and functional approach" from U.E.S., Local 298 v. Bibeault (1988) and the three available standards of review. He dismissed the alternative approach of addressing "jurisdictional issues", when they should be separate from normal analysis.^[2]

In his view, since the issue is "a serious question of general importance" there is no other standard but that of "correctness".

[edit] Article 1F(c)

Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.

[edit] Traifficking

Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision at LexUMand CanLII
• case summary