3. Return of claimants referred back to RPD after deportation

Nov 2015
  1. Claimants have been deported while waiting for decisions from the Federal Court;
  2. Claimants were deported who subsequently become eligible for an appeal at the RAD;
Therefore be it resolved:

that the CCR advocate that those deported claimants that have subsequently been referred back to the RPD by the Federal Court or the RAD be brought back to Canada for re-examination by the RPD.

Working Group:

17. Sanctuary

May 2004
  1. Everyone in Canada has a Charter right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
  2. Everyone in a state which has ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has an obligation to promote those rights.
  3. The Québec Charter of Rights and Freedoms places a duty on everyone to protect the life of another.
  4. The government of Canada has failed to implement the appeal on the merits for refugee claimants, depriving refused claimants of an important safeguard contained in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
  5. The Canadian government has itself acknowledged problems with the refugee determination system, which it has claimed to have addressed with recent changes to the nomination process for IRB members and the introduction of regulations regarding immigration consultants.
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR:

  1. Recognize that recourse to sanctuary may be necessary to protect asylum seekers whose lives or security would be jeopardized if removed from Canada.
  2. Deplore the recent, first-known, violation of sanctuary in Canada by police acting with force and in apparent close cooperation with CBSA and other government officials.
  3. When sanctuary is necessary, encourage those providing it to inform the CCR membership, so that members may assist in encouraging the government to reconsider the situation that leads to sanctuary.
  4. Take appropriate action to encourage the government to reconsider the situation that leads to sanctuary.
  5. Re-affirm the need for the implementation of the appeal on the merits for refused refugee claimants.
  6. Call upon the Canadian government to continue to respect the historic right of sanctuary.
Working Group:

3. Refugee Appeal Division

May 2002
  1. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has delayed the implementation of the Refugee Appeal Division without postponing the introduction of one-member IRB panels;
  2. Refugee claimants' right to a fair hearing is thereby inadequately protected;
  3. The Minister announced orally on May 17, 2002 that he would implement the appeal within one year;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR call on the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to:

  1. Implement the RAD immediately;
  2. If he is unwilling to implement the RAD immediately, to:  a) repeat in writing his commitment to implement the RAD within one year.  b) delay the reduction of IRB panel members until the RAD is implemented.
Working Group:

12. Pending cases

Nov 1998
  1. Some countries interpret the Refugee Convention in a narrow and technical manner denying effective protection to refugees;
  2. Canadian visa officers sometimes show too much deference to the decisions of tribunals of other countries which have refused refugee claims which under the Canadian interpretation of the Convention would be accepted;
  3. Canada's visa offices are inconsistent in their efforts to establish meaningful channels of communication with local and Canadian NGOs involved in resettlement;
  4. Canada has failed to put in place meaningful review of negative decisions despite a refusal rate significantly higher than other resettlement countries;
  5. Applicants for resettlement from some countries are deported from those countries despite having applications for resettlement to Canada pending, particularly in light of the frequent long processing times for such applications;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR:

  1. Call on the appropriate departments of the Government of Canada to:


    a)remind visa offices of the often broader interpretation of the Refugee Convention in Canadian law than that demonstrated by some other countries, particularly with respect to the absence of a requirement for persecution to be at the hands of the state;

    b)ensure that in cases where the applicant does not meet the Convention definition but has a private sponsorship that the relatively broader provisions of the Asylum Class are thoroughly considered;

    c)strengthen and regularize consultation between visa offices and local and Canadian NGOs involved in resettlement;

    d)establish and implement a meaningful review of negative decisions on resettlement cases similar to that recently adopted by US INS;

  2. Call on the Government of Canada to play a prominent role in convincing other governments to interpret the Convention in a broad manner;
  3. Ask the Government of Canada to urge other governments to allow applicants for resettlement in Canada to remain in their countries of asylum pending determination of their applications by Canada.

13. Appeal on the merits

May 1995
  1. Proposed amendments to the Immigration Act recently announced by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will result in one member IRB hearings thereby removing important procedural protections from refugee claimants and increasing the chance of incorrect IRB decisions;
  2. The Minister has previously acknowledged the need for an appeal on the merits for IRB decisions;
  3. The Minister has rejected the recommendations of the Davis/Waldman report and other consultations which support the establishment of an appeal on the merits for IRB decisions;
  4. Past conclusions of the Executive Committee of the UNHCR have stated that signatories to the Refugee Convention should have a process whereby refugee claimants may appeal the merits of a negative decision on their refugee claims;
Therefore be it resolved:

That the CCR strongly express its disappointment and disagreement with the Minister's failure to establish an appeal process whereby unsuccessful refugee claimants could appeal a negative decision of the IRB on the merits.

Working Group: