I was rather optimistic in thinking that the question of deference to ministerial interpretations of law had been settled by the Supreme Court of Canada in Agraira (see my post here).
Two stern responses arrived last week from the Federal Court of Appeal, the body which deals more than any other with judicial review of ministerial decision-making. Most notably, Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Kandola, 2014 FCA 8, but also Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration) c. Dufour, 2014 CAF 81.
Showing posts with label ministerial interpretations of law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ministerial interpretations of law. Show all posts
Friday, 11 April 2014
Monday, 24 June 2013
Some Thoughts on the SCC Decision in Agraira
The Supreme Court of Canada rendered, through the pen of LeBel J., a unanimous judgment in Agraira v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36 last week.
The applicant is a Libyan national. He first sought and was refused refugee status: he claimed that he was a member of the Libyan National Salvation Front. This caused problems for him down the line. When he applied to become a permanent resident of Canada, he was deemed inadmissible because of his involvement in a terrorist organization. In short, he was not involved enough to be a refugee, but too involved to be admissible!
The applicant is a Libyan national. He first sought and was refused refugee status: he claimed that he was a member of the Libyan National Salvation Front. This caused problems for him down the line. When he applied to become a permanent resident of Canada, he was deemed inadmissible because of his involvement in a terrorist organization. In short, he was not involved enough to be a refugee, but too involved to be admissible!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)