Németh v. Canada (Justice)

Németh v. Canada (Justice)
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
2010-11-25
Neutral citation
2010 SCC 56
Report
[2010] 3 SCR 281
Case number
33016
Judges
McLachlin, Beverley; Binnie, William Ian Corneil; LeBel, Louis; Deschamps, Marie; Fish, Morris J.; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Charron, Louise; Rothstein, Marshall; Cromwell, Thomas Albert
On appeal from
Quebec
Subjects
Criminal law
Notes
SCC Case Information: 33016
Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: Németh v. Canada (Justice), 2010 SCC 56, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 281
Date: 20101125
Docket: 33016
Between:
Jószef Németh and
Jószefne Németh (a.k.a. Józsefne Nagy Szidonia)
Appellants
and
Minister of Justice of Canada
Respondent
- and -
Barreau du Québec, Québec Immigration Lawyers
Association and Canadian Council for Refugees
Interveners
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.
Reasons for Judgment:
(paras. 1 to 124)
Cromwell J. (McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ. concurring)
Németh v. Canada (Justice), 2010 SCC 56, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 281
Jószef Németh and
Jószefne Németh (a.k.a. Józsefne Nagy Szidonia) Appellants
v.
Minister of Justice of Canada Respondent
and
Barreau du Québec, Québec Immigration Lawyers Association
and Canadian Council for Refugees Interveners
Indexed as: Németh v. Canada (Justice)
2010 SCC 56
File No.: 33016.
2010: January 13; 2010: November 25.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec
Extradition — Surrender — Convention refugees — Principle of “non-refoulement” — Minister of Justice ordered extradition of Convention refugees to Republic of Hungary — Whether Minister of Justice had legal authority to surrender for extradition refugees whose refugee status had not ceased or been revoked — If so, whether Minister reasonably exercised his authority to surrender — Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18, s. 44 — Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 115 .
Extradition — Surrender — Evidence — Burden of proof — Convention refugees sought for extradition — Statutory grounds justifying Minister of Justice’s refusal to make surrender order — Whether s. 44(1)(b) of Extradition Act makes risk of persecution mandatory ground of refusal of surrender — Whether Minister of Justice erred by imposing on refugees the burden of showing that they would suffer persecution if extradited — Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18, s. 44(1) (b).
On arriving in Canada in 2001, the Némeths, a couple of Roma ethnic origin, applied for refugee status for themselves and their children, alleging that acts of violence had been committed against them in their country of origin, Hungary. In 2002, the Némeths and their children were granted refugee status and they later became permanent residents. Years later, Hungary issued an international arrest warrant in respect of a charge of fraud that had been laid against the Némeths and requested Canada to extradite them. The Minister of Justice eventually ordered their surrender for extradition and the decision was upheld on review by the Court of Appeal.
Held: The appeal should be allowed and the matter remitted to the Minister of Justice for reconsideration.
At the heart of the protections accorded to refugees under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Refugee Convention”) are the provisions relating to expulsion and return. Article 33 of the Refugee Convention embodies in refugee law the principle of non-refoulement which prohibits the direct or indirect removal of refugees to a territory where they run a risk of being subjected to human rights violations. The main legislative vehicle for implementing Canada’s international refugee obligations is the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA ”) and the provision specifically directed to fulfilling this obligation in relation to non-refoulement is s. 115 which provides that a “protected person”, which includes a refugee, “shall not be removed from Canada to a country where they would be at risk of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion”. The meaning of the words “removed from Canada” in s. 115 when read in context has a specialized meaning in the IRPA that does not include removal by extradition. While it is accepted that protection against refoulement under the Refugee Convention applies to expulsion by extradition and where possible statutes should be interpreted in a way which makes their provisions consistent with Canada’s international treaty obligations and principles of international law, the presumption that legislation implements Canada’s international obligations is rebuttable. If the provisions are unambiguous, they must be given effect and since s. 115 does not address removal by extradition, its clear meaning must be given effect. This interpretation of s. 115 does not result in Canadian domestic law failing to respect its non-refoulement obligations under the Refugee Convention, as those obligations in the context of extradition are fully satisfied by a correct interpretation and application of s. 44 of the Extradition Act (“EA ”). Therefore, s. 115 of the IRPA does not conflict with the EA because the prohibition on removal from Canada does not apply to extradition.
The absence of a provision in the EA expressly addressing the extradition of a person with refugee status does not withhold that power from the Minister of Justice. The “silence” argument is premised on the fact that the EA addresses extradition only in the context of a refugee claimant, not a person with refugee status. The position that an earlier finding of refugee status under the IRPA is binding on the Minister of Justice under the EA until it is ended using the procedures of cessation or revocation under the IRPA finds no explicit support in the text of the IRPA or the EA and is inconsistent with the apparent intention of Parliament. The Minister of Justice was intended to take the lead when a refugee’s rights are implicated in an extradition decision. The Refugee Convention does not bind the contracting states to any particular process for either granting or withdrawing refugee status. Moreover, looking beyond the terms of the Refugee Convention, there are no international law norms to the effect that extradition may only be ordered if a previous finding that a person is a refugee has been formally set aside. Therefore, the Minister of Justice in dealing with an extradition request is not bound by a finding under the IRPA that the person sought is a refugee and can surrender that person for extradition even though his or her refugee status has not ceased or been vacated using the procedures provided under the IRPA .
The Minister of Justice’s power to surrender someone for extradition under the EA is discretionary. However, this discretion to order or to refuse surrender is structured and, in some circumstances, constrained by the other provisions of the statute, the applicable treaty and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . Although there are no express references to refugees in the EA , it does provide for protections of persons who fear abusive treatment, persecution or torture in the requesting state. The most relevant provision in this regard is s. 44 which sets out mandatory reasons for refusal of surrender. Under s. 44(1) of the EA , the Minister must refuse to make a surrender order if satisfied that (a) the surrender would be unjust or oppressive having regard to all the relevant circumstances; or (b) the request for extradition is made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the person by reason of their race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, language, colour, political opinion, sex, sexual orientation, age, mental or physical disability or status or that the person’s position may be prejudiced for any of those reasons. These mandatory reasons for refusal of surrender prevail over provisions of an extradition treaty and as the exercise of the Minister’s power to surrender implicates the liberty and in some cases the security of the person sought, the Minister owes a duty of fairness both at common law and in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter . There is thus an overlap between the provisions of s. 44 and the Charter . While s. 44(1)(a) is not limited to conduct that would constitute a breach of the Charter , it is nonetheless the case that where surrender would be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice, it will also be unjust and oppressive within the meaning of s. 44(1) (a). Furthermore, where extradition is sought for the purpose of persecuting an individual on the basis of a prohibited ground as contemplated by the first branch of s. 44(1) (b), ordering surrender will be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.
Section 44(1) (b) of the EA is Canada’s primary legislative vehicle to give effect to its non‑refoulement obligations when a refugee is sought for extradition. This provision is inspired by the provisions in the European Convention on Extradition and the United Nations’ Model Treaty on Extradition and the similarity of their texts makes clear that the provision was adopted to serve the purpose of protecting against prejudice in the requesting state, particularly when extradition would constitute a violation of the requested state’s obligation in relation to non-refoulement. Both the English and the French texts of s. 44(1) (b) support the view that it contains two branches and that the “position” of the party is not limited to his or her position in relation to prosecution or punishment. Reading the section as being confined to prejudice in the prosecution or punishment of the refugee would not allow the section to achieve the purpose of giving effect to Canada’s obligations with respect to non-refoulement. Given the text and purpose of s. 44(1) (b) and the interpretation which has been given to the European Convention on Extradition on which it is based, the closing words of s. 44(1) (b) are read broadly as protecting a refugee against refoulement which risks prejudice to him or her on the listed grounds in the requesting state whether or not the prejudice is strictly linked to prosecution or punishment.
Section 44(1) (b) must be considered whenever the Minister’s surrender decision concerns a person with refugee status in Canada and the requesting state is the one from which the refugee has been granted protection. Refusal of surrender is mandatory if the Minister is satisfied that the conditions which led to conferral of refugee status still exist and it is not shown that the person sought was or has become ineligible for refugee status. An individual’s status as a refugee under the Refugee Convention has a temporal aspect; the status depends on the situation that exists at the time protection is sought. In the same way, the relevant time for assessing entitlement to non-refoulement protection is the time removal is sought. The same principle applies to s. 44(1) (b). The question of entitlement to protection against refoulement arises at the time surrender is being considered and must be assessed in light of the circumstances at the time. Where a person has been found, according to the processes established by Canadian law, to be a refugee and therefore to have at least a prima facie entitlement to protection against refoulement, that determination must be given appropriate weight by the Minister in exercising his duty to refuse extradition on the basis of risk of persecution. There should not be a burden on a person who has refugee status to persuade the Minister that the conditions which led to the conferral of refugee protection have not changed. This approach is not only consistent with Canada’s domestic law in relation to cessation of refugee protection on the basis of changed circumstances, but with Canada’s international undertakings with respect to non-refoulement of refugees. This is a more practical and fair approach than placing a burden on refugees to prove current conditions in the country from which they have been absent perhaps for an extended period. The obligations under the Refugee Convention and the analogy to the cessation and revocation provisions under the IRPA suggest that, under s. 44(1) (b) of the EA , a refugee should not have to establish at the surrender phase that the conditions which led to conferring refugee status, and thus to non-refoulement protection, continue to exist. When the Minister acting under the EA is in effect determining that refugee protection (and thus non‑refoulement protection under the Refugee Convention) of a person sought is excluded or is no longer required by virtue of a change of circumstances in the requesting country, he must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the person sought is no longer entitled to refugee status in Canada. The Minister of Justice must consult with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration concerning current conditions in the requesting state in considering whether the person sought is no longer entitled to refugee protection on the basis of changed circumstances. Finally, a duty of fairness applies to the Minister’s consideration of the issue under s. 44(1) (b) which includes providing the refugee with the case to meet, providing a reasonable opportunity to challenge that case as well as a reasonable opportunity to present his or her own case.
In this case, the Minister’s approach to the exercise of his powers failed to give sufficient weight or scope to Canada’s non‑refoulement obligations in light of which those powers must be interpreted and applied. The Minister’s consideration of the Némeths’ case was fundamentally flawed. He focussed exclusively on s. 44(1) (a) of the EA in requiring the Némeths to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that they would face persecution on their return to Hungary and that the persecution they face would shock the conscience or be fundamentally unacceptable to Canadian society. He imposed too high a threshold for determining whether the Némeths would face persecution on their return and placed the burden of proof on this issue on the Némeths notwithstanding the earlier finding that they were refugees. Further, the Minister failed to address s. 44(1) (b) which is the most relevant provision of the EA in relation to their surrender. The Minister applied incorrect legal principles and acted unreasonably in reaching his conclusions.
Cases Cited
Referred to: Lake v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2008 SCC 23, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 761; R. v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd., 2001 SCC 56, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 867; Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 1, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3; Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; R. v. Hape, 2007 SCC 26, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 292; Zingre v. The Queen, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 392; Ordon Estate v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 SCC 62, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 269; Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), 2000 SCC 31, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783; Castillo v. Castillo, 2005 SCC 83, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 870; Canada 3000 Inc. (Re), 2006 SCC 24, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 865; R. (Yogathas) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2002] UKHL 36, [2003] 1 A.C. 920; United States of America v. Kwok, 2001 SCC 18, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 532; Canada (Justice) v. Fischbacher, 2009 SCC 46, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 170; Hungary (Republic) v. Horvath, 2007 ONCA 734, 65 Imm. L.R. (3d) 169, leave to appeal refused, [2008] 1 S.C.R. ix; United States of America v. Whitley (1994), 119 D.L.R. (4th) 693, aff’d [1996] 1 S.C.R. 467; Pacificador v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (2002), 166 C.C.C. (3d) 321; United States v. Burns, 2001 SCC 7, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283; United States of America v. Pannell, 2007 ONCA 786, 227 C.C.C. (3d) 336; United States of Mexico v. Hurley (1997), 35 O.R. (3d) 481; United States v. Bonamie, 2001 ABCA 267, 96 Alta. L.R. (3d) 252; Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982; Folkerts v. State-Secretary of Justice (1978), 74 I.L.R. 472; Hilali v. Central Court of Criminal Proceedings No. 5 of the National Court, Madrid, [2006] EWHC 1239 (Admin.), [2006] 4 All E.R. 435; Republic of Croatia v. Snedden, [2010] HCA 14, 265 A.L.R. 621; Adjei v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1989] 2 F.C. 680; R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p. Sivakumaran, [1988] 1 A.C. 958; M38/2002 v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, [2003] FCAFC 131, 199 A.L.R. 290; Zaoui v. Attorney-General (No. 2), [2005] 1 N.Z.L.R. 690; Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987).
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 .
Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6 .
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 380(1) .
Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18, ss. 3(1) , 7 , 15 , 29(1) (a), 40 , 44 , 45(1) , (2) , 46 , 47 .
Extradition Act 1988 (Austr.), No. 4 of 1988, s. 7(c).
Extradition Act 2003 (U.K.), c. 41, s. 13(a), (b).
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, ss. 3(2) (b), (3) (d), (f), 4(1) , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 44(2) , 45 (d), 48 , 53 , 95 , 96 , 98 , 105 , 108(1) , (2) , 109 , 112 , 115 , Division 5 of Part I.
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, r. 223.
Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2002-228, r. 57(2)(f).
International Documents
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Can. T.S. 1969 No. 6, Arts. 1, 16, 32, 33, 42.
European Convention on Extradition, Eur. T.S. No. 24, Art. 3(2).
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Can. T.S. 1969 No. 29.
United Nations. General Assembly. Model Treaty on Extradition, U.N. Doc. A/RES/45/116, December 14, 1990, Art. 3(b).
Authors Cited
Aughterson, Edmund Paul. Extradition: Australian Law and Procedure. Sydney: Law Book Co., 1995.
Bassiouni, M. Cherif. International Extradition: United States Law and Practice, 5th ed. New York: Oceana, 2007.
Canada. House of Commons. House of Commons Debates, vol. 135, No. 162, 1st Sess., 36th Parl., November 30, 1998, pp. 10591, 10592 and 10595.
Canada. House of Commons. Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, November 5, 1998, at 17:10 (online: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=36&Ses=1&DocId=1039052&File=0).
Canada. House of Commons. Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, November 17, 1998, at 11:45 and 12:05 (online: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/
Publication.aspx?DocId=1039054&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=36&Ses=1).
Canada. House of Commons. Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Sixteenth Report, November 23, 1998 (online: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/
HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=1031913&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=36&Ses=1).
Canada. Senate. Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Issue No. 60, 1st Sess., 36th Parl., March 10, 1999, pp. 60:6 et seq.
Currie, Robert J. International & Transnational Criminal Law. Toronto: Irwin Law, 2010.
Droege, Cordula. “Transfers of detainees: legal framework, non-refoulement and contemporary challenges” (2008), 90 Int’l Rev. Red Cross 669.
Duffy, Aoife. “Expulsion to Face Torture? Non-refoulement in International Law” (2008), 20 Int’l J. Refugee L. 373.
Fitzpatrick, Joan, et Rafael Bonoan. “La cessation de la protection de réfugié”, dans Erika Feller, Volker Türk et Frances Nicholson, dir., La protection des réfugiés en droit international. Bruxelles: Larcier, 2008, 551.
Goodwin-Gill, Guy S., and Jane McAdam. The Refugee in International Law, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Hathaway, James C. The Rights of Refugees Under International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Jones, Martin and Sasha Baglay. Refugee Law. Toronto: Irwin Law, 2007.
Köfner, Gottfried. Case Abstract (1993), 5 Int’l J. Refugee L. 271.
Lauterpacht, Elihu, et Daniel Bethlehem. “Avis sur la portée et le contenu du principe du non‑refoulement”, dans Erika Feller, Volker Türk et Frances Nicholson, dir., La protection des réfugiés en droit international. Bruxelles: Larcier, 2008, 119.
Nicholls, Clive, Clare Montgomery and Julian B. Knowles. The Law of Extradition and Mutual Assistance, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Pirjola, Jari. “Shadows in Paradise — Exploring Non‑Refoulement as an Open Concept” (2007), 19 Int’l J. Refugee L. 639.
Schabas, William A. “Non-Refoulement”, in Expert Workshop on Human Rights and International Co-operation in Counter-Terrorism: Final Report (OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights). Liechtenstein: February 2007 (online: http://www.osce.org/odihr/24170).
Sullivan, Ruth. Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 5th ed. Markham, Ont.: LexisNexis, 2008.
Swart, Bert. “Refusal of Extradition and the United Nations Model Treaty on Extradition” (1992), 23 Neth. Y.B. Int’l Law 175.
United Nations. Office on Drugs and Crime. Revised Manuals on the Model Treaty on Extradition and on the Model Treaty on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, December 6-8, 2002 (online: http://www.unodc.org/pdf/model_treaty_extradition_revised_manual.pdf).
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Guidance Note on Extradition and International Refugee Protection. Geneva: The Commissioner, 2008 (online: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/481ec7d92.html).
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Problems of Extradition Affecting Refugees, 16 October 1980, No. 17 (XXXI) — 1980 (online: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae68c4423.html).
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. “Relevé des conclusions: La cessation du statut de réfugié”, dans Erika Feller, Volker Türk et Frances Nicholson, dir., La protection des réfugiés en droit international. Bruxelles: Larcier, 2008, 611.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The Interface Between Extradition and Asylum (prepared by Sibylle Kapferer). November 2003, PPLA/2003/05 (online: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3fe846da4.html).
Waldman, Lorne. Immigration Law and Practice, vol. 1, 2nd ed. Markham, Ont.: LexisNexis, 2005 (loose-leaf updated March 2010, release 21).
Wouters, Kees. International Legal Standards for the Protection from Refoulement: A Legal Analysis of the Prohibitions on Refoulement Contained in the Refugee Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Against Torture. Portland, Or.: Intersentia, 2009.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (Rochette, Rochon and Doyon JJ.A.), 2009 QCCA 99, [2009] R.J.Q. 253, 83 Imm. L.R. (3d) 16, 2009 CarswellQue 8504, [2009] Q.J. No. 271 (QL), dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Justice of Canada ordering the appellants’ surrender. Appeal allowed.
Marie-Hélène Giroux and Clément Monterosso, for the appellants.
Ginette Gobeil and Janet Henchey, for the respondent.
Pierre Poupart and Ronald Prégent, for the intervener Barreau du Québec.
Johanne Doyon, Elaine Doyon and Dan Bohbot, for the intervener the Québec Immigration Lawyers Association.
John Norris and Brydie Bethell, for the intervener the Canadian Council for Refugees.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
Cromwell J. —
I. Introduction
[1] This appeal requires us to reconcile Canada’s competing obligations with respect to extradition and refugee protection. Under international treaties and domestic law, Canada has undertaken not to return refugees to face the persecution they fled. This is known as the principle of non-refoulement and it is a cornerstone of refugee protection. Canada also has obligations under treaties and domestic law to extradite persons who are sought by foreign states to face criminal prosecutions or serve sentences. These are important obligations that relate not only to Canada’s engagements with other states, but also to the effectiveness of law enforcement. These two obligations in relation to non-refoulement and extradition may collide, however, when Canada is faced with a request to extradite refugees to a state which they fled to avoid persecution. This case is an example.
[2] The appellants came to Canada and were given refugee protection; they persuaded the authorities that they had a well-founded fear of persecution in their native Hungary on the basis of their Roma ethnic origin. Years later, Hungary requested Canada to extradite them and the Minister of Justice eventually ordered their surrender for extradition. His decision was upheld on review by the Quebec Court of Appeal: 2009 QCCA 99, 2009 CarswellQue 8504. The appellants contend on appeal to this Court that, because of Canada’s non-refoulement obligations, they may not be extradited back to Hungary so long as they retain their refugee status in Canada. The respondent takes the view that the appellants may be extradited in spite of their refugee status because they are charged in Hungary with a serious non-political crime and have failed to establish any continuing risk of persecution upon their return.
[3] The resolution of the appeal requires an interpretation of the Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18 (“EA ”), and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (“IRPA ”), that reconciles the competing obligations in relation to extradition and non-refoulement. I agree with the respondent that, under certain conditions, the appelants may be extradited to their country of origin even though their refugee status under Canadian law has not formally ceased or been revoked. However, my view is that the Minister of Justice (“Minister”) did not apply the correct legal principles when he decided to surrender the appellants for extradition. He imposed on them the burden of showing that they would suffer persecution if extradited and by doing so, gave insufficient weight to the appellants’ refugee status and to Canada’s non-refoulement obligations. I would therefore allow the appeal and remit the matter to the Minister of Justice for reconsideration according to law.
II. Facts and Proceedings
[4] On arriving in Canada in 2001, the appellants, who are a couple, applied for refugee status for themselves and their children, alleging that acts of violence had been committed against them in their country of origin, Hungary. Their application was based on three incidents between 1997 and 2001 in which the male appellant, together on one occasion with the female appellant, was attacked by Hungarian citizens because of their Gypsy ethnic origin. The appellants and their children were granted refugee status and became permanent residents.
[5] Some two years later, Hungary issued an international arrest warrant in respect of a charge of fraud that had been laid against the appellants. The Hungarian authorities allege that in early November 2000, the couple sold the right of lease for premises in Budapest for approximately C$2,700, despite the fact that they did not possess the right to lease the flat.
[6] The Minister sought an order from the Superior Court of Quebec for the appellants’ committal on the Canadian offence of fraud contrary to s. 380(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , which corresponds to the conduct alleged against them in Hungary. The committal order was granted and has not been appealed.
[7] The Minister then ordered their surrender. In reaching his decision, he considered the principle of non-refoulement, but concluded it did not stand in the way of ordering the appellants’ surrender. The Minister noted first that there is an exception to non-refoulement with respect to persons who are accused of a serious non-political offence which he noted was defined in the immigration context to be an offence punishable by imprisonment of 10 years or more. Fraud, he noted, is such a crime. He did not, however, address the appellants’ contention that, given the amount of the alleged deprivation, the offences alleged against them would not attract a punishment of 10 years in Canada. The Minister then turned to the issue of risk of persecution. He stated his view that persons challenging their surrender on the basis that they will be persecuted in the requesting state must establish two things on the balance of probabilities: that the persecution would sufficiently shock the conscience or be fundamentally unacceptable to Canadian society and that they will in fact be subjected to this persecution. The relevant time for assessing this, he said, is the present, not the time at which refugee status had been granted, in this case, some six years earlier. To assist his consideration of risk the appellants would face if returned to Hungary, the Minister sought and received the views of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The advice was to the effect that, following Hungary’s accession to the European Union in 2004, there was no serious possibility that the appellants would be subjected in Hungary to persecution on the basis of their Roma origin.
[8] The appellants sought judicial review of this decision in the Quebec Court of Appeal. Doyon J.A., writing for the Court of Appeal, dismissed the joint application for judicial review. In his view, the respondent had jurisdiction to order the surrender of the appellants after having consulted with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (“MCI”) about this. Doyon J.A. also concluded that the respondent’s decision was reasonable:
[translation] He could reasonably conclude that the situation in Hungary is such that extradition of the applicants is not oppressive or unjust, does not shock the conscience of Canadians, and is not unacceptable. The opinion of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration authorized him to conclude that the situation in Hungary has changed since the applicants’ departure. Hungary’s accession to the European Union in May 2004 is proof that the country has satisfied certain criteria with regard to the stability of its democratic institutions, the rule of law, human rights, and the respect and protection of minorities; it has also had to harmonize its laws and institutions with those of the European Union. The detailed risk analysis sent by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration permits the assertion that the respondent could reasonably conclude that there is no longer a risk of persecution in Hungary on the basis of racial origin and that these changes indicate that the situation there is completely different from the situation there about a decade ago. [para. 38]
III. Issues and Standard of Review
[9] The case raises two main issues:
1. Does the Minister have the legal authority to surrender for extradition a refugee whose refugee status has not ceased or been revoked?
2. If so, did the Minister exercise that authority reasonably in this case?
[10] The standard of judicial review is not contentious. The Minister’s decision to surrender for extradition should be treated with deference; it will generally be reviewed for reasonableness. However, in order for a decision to be reasonable, it must relate to a matter within the Minister’s statutory authority and he must apply the correct legal tests to the issues before him. As LeBel J. said on behalf of the Court in Lake v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2008 SCC 23, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 761, at para. 41:
[T]he Minister must, in reaching his decision, apply the correct legal test. The Minister’s conclusion will not be rational or defensible if he has failed to carry out the proper analysis. If, however, the Minister has identified the proper test, the conclusion he has reached in applying that test should be upheld by a reviewing court unless it is unreasonable. . . . Given the Minister’s expertise and his obligation to ensure that Canada complies with its international commitments, he is in the best position to determine whether the factors weigh in favour of or against extradition. [Emphasis added.]
IV. Analysis
A. Introduction
[11] The parties advance two competing approaches to the question of how to reconcile Canada’s obligations with respect to non-refoulement and extradition. The appellants (to put their position in broad terms) submit that the powers to extradite under the EA must be read as being subject to the detailed scheme for the treatment of refugees under the IRPA . In brief, a person with refugee status cannot be extradited until the refugee status has ceased or been revoked through the processes set out in the IRPA . The respondent, on the other hand, submits that the interaction of extradition and non-refoulement is addressed mainly through the EA and, more particularly, through the mandatory and discretionary bases on which the Minister may refuse surrender of a person sought for extradition.
[12] My analysis will be structured around these two competing approaches. In the next section I will explain why in my view, the appellants’ central contention — that the power to surrender for extradition is subject to the refugee process under the IRPA — cannot be accepted. In the following section, I will address the respondent’s position, which I largely accept, that protection against refoulement is addressed in the extradition context by the mandatory and discretionary bars of surrender in the EA . I will also explain why, in my view, the Minister applied the wrong legal tests in exercising those powers in this case.
B. The Minister’s Authority to Extradite a Refugee
[13] The appellants’ and supporting interveners’ main submission is that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, the Minister dealing with an extradition request is bound by a finding under the IRPA that the person sought is a refugee and cannot surrender that person for extradition unless his or her refugee status has ceased or been vacated using the procedures provided for under the IRPA . This limitation, the appellants say, must be read into the EA for three main reasons. I will refer to these submissions as the “conflict” argument, the “silence” argument and the “fair process” argument. The first two will be addressed here and the third in the next section of my reasons.
(1) The Conflict Argument
[14] The first submission is that the Minister’s powers under the EA should be interpreted as not applying to refugees in order to avoid a conflict between the provisions of the EA and the IRPA . This submission is supported by the principle of statutory interpretation which presumes harmony, coherence, and consistency between statutes dealing with the same subject matter: R. v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd., 2001 SCC 56, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 867, at paras. 30 and 52; Ruth Sullivan, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th ed. 2008), at pp. 223-25.
[15] The supposed conflict is between the non-refoulement provision (s. 115 ) of the IRPA and the Minister’s powers of surrender under the EA . Section 115 of the IRPA provides that a “protected person”, which includes a refugee, “shall not be removed from Canada to a country where they would be at risk of persecution”. The general powers of the Minister to surrender a person for extradition under the EA have no express limitation or exception relating to refugees. Thus, it is argued that the statutes conflict because the IRPA prohibits removal of a refugee to a place he or she will face persecution while the EA permits the Minister to do so by means of surrendering the person for extradition. The appellants’ position is that this conflict should be avoided by interpreting the Minister’s power of surrender under the EA as being subject to a requirement that a refugee may only be surrendered to the country he or she fled if the refugee’s status has ceased or been revoked by means of the processes set out in the IRPA .
[16] In my view, there is no conflict between the IRPA and the EA because the prohibition on removal from Canada under s. 115 of the IRPA does not apply to extradition. Before turning to my reasons for reaching that conclusion, it will be helpful to place the issue in the broader context of refugee protection in Canada.
[17] Canada has ratified the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Can. T.S. 1969 No. 6 (“Refugee Convention”), as well as the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Can. T.S. 1969 No. 29. The Refugee Convention defines “refugee” and sets out a series of obligations to them on the part of contracting states. While the Refugee Convention applied only to events occurring before January 1, 1951 (Article 1A(2)) and, at the option of the contracting party, only to events occurring in Europe, the state parties to the 1967 Protocol agreed to eliminate this temporal and geographical limitation on the Refugee Convention’s operation, with certain exceptions not relevant here (Article 1). Thus, under the Refugee Convention and the Protocol, the definition of refugee includes “any person who . . . owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country” (Refugee Convention, Article 1A(2)).
[18] At the heart of the protections accorded to refugees under the Refugee Convention are the provisions relating to expulsion and return. Most relevant to the appeal is Article 33 which addresses the return of refugees to places where they may face persecution. This article embodies in refugee law the principle of non-refoulement which has been described as the cornerstone of the international refugee protection regime: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Guidance Note on Extradition and International Refugee Protection (April 2008). Underlining the centrality of this provision is the fact that, by virtue of Article 42 of the Refugee Convention, ratifying states may not make reservations to the non-refoulement protections afforded by Article 33.
[19] Stated in broad and general terms, the principle of non-refoulement prohibits the direct or indirect removal of refugees to a territory where they run a risk of being subjected to human rights violations. The object of the principle is the prevention of human rights violations and it is prospective in scope: Kees Wouters, International Legal Standards for the Protection from Refoulement: A Legal Analysis of the Prohibitions on Refoulement Contained in the Refugee Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Against Torture (2009), at p. 25. The principle of non-refoulement has been enlarged beyond its application to refugees by modern international human rights law, but it is its scope in relation to the Refugee Convention that is pertinent to this appeal: William A. Schabas, “Non-Refoulement”, in Expert Workshop on Human Rights and International Co-operation in Counter-Terrorism: Final Report (2007), 20, at p. 23.
[20] Article 33 of the Refugee Convention provides:
Article 33
Prohibition of Expulsion or Return (“Refoulement”)
1. No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membersh