Pushpanathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Supreme court of Canada in summer

Pushpanathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that addressed the interpretation of the term "serious non-political crime" in the context of refugee law. The case is significant for its analysis of the Refugee Convention and its application within Canadian law.

Background[edit | edit source]

The appellant, Suresh Pushpanathan, was a Tamil from Sri Lanka who sought refugee status in Canada. He was denied refugee status on the grounds that he had been involved in drug trafficking, which was considered a "serious non-political crime" under the Immigration Act, 1976. Pushpanathan challenged this decision, arguing that his involvement in drug trafficking did not constitute a "serious non-political crime" as defined by the Refugee Convention.

Legal Issues[edit | edit source]

The primary legal issue in this case was the interpretation of the term "serious non-political crime" within the context of the Refugee Convention and its incorporation into Canadian law through the Immigration Act, 1976. The case also examined the standard of review applicable to decisions made by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

Supreme Court Decision[edit | edit source]

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favor of Pushpanathan, holding that the term "serious non-political crime" should be interpreted narrowly. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the Refugee Convention is to protect individuals from persecution and that exclusions from refugee protection should be applied restrictively.

The Court also clarified the standard of review for decisions made by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, establishing that a reasonableness standard should be applied in cases involving the interpretation of international treaties incorporated into Canadian law.

Impact[edit | edit source]

The decision in Pushpanathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) has had a significant impact on Canadian refugee law. It has influenced the interpretation of the Refugee Convention and the application of exclusion clauses in refugee determinations. The case is frequently cited in subsequent refugee law cases and has contributed to the development of a more nuanced understanding of the term "serious non-political crime."