In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada in Ezokola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) created a new test for determining complicity in Article 1F(a) exclusion cases. Article 1F(a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention provides that: The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there  are serious reasons for considering that: (a)  He has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes; The issue that Ezokola addressed […]

Read more ›

The Supreme Court of Canada has “clarified” the elements of the duress defence.  The defence is important because it can affect admissibility.  For example, in Guerra Diaz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 88, the Court determined that the Immigration and Refugee Board improperly applied the test of whether duress applied, and ordered a new hearing by a different member. It is basically trite law that where there is duress, then a person does not have the mens rea do either commit a crime or be a member in a group […]

Read more ›

On March 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC“) in R v. J.F., clarified the elements of the offence of conspiracy.  The decision has immigration implications because people who have been convicted of conspiracy may be inadmissible to Canada.   Section 465 of Canada’s Criminal Code criminalizes the offence of conspiracy.  Conspiracy is a form of inchoate liability.  In other words, the actual result of the conspiracy need not occur for someone to be convicted under s. 465.  For example, a person can be convicted of “conspiracy to commit murder” even if the […]

Read more ›