- Latest News
- Contact Us
Partner Organization: Canadian Centre for International Justice
Students: Randle de Falco, Sofia Ijaz
The IHRP, in partnership with the Canadian Centre for International Justice (CCIJ), filed a factum on December 20, 2012 in support of its intervention before the Supreme Court of Canada in Rachidi Ekanza Ezokola v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The case was heard in Ottawa on January 17, 2013.
The case concerned the proper interpretation of Article 1(F)(a) of the Refugee Convention, as incorporated into Canadian law. Article 1(F)(a) excludes from refugee protection a person for whom there are "serious reasons for considering" that he/she has "committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity."
The IHRP and CCIJ argued that, in determining the proper interpretation of Article 1(F)(a), the Court must be guided by the principles and jurisprudence of international criminal law, including the various modes of liability that must be established to determine whether someone has "committed" a war crime, crime against humanity, or genocide. In particular, we will argue that under modern ICL, membership, without more, in an organization that has been associated with or implicated in international crimes is not itself enough to constitute an international crime.
The IHRP and CCIJ were represented on a pro bono basis by John Terry and Sarah Shody at Torys LLP., along with IHRP Clinic Director Renu Mandhane. Two clinic students, Sofia Mariam Ijaz (2L) and Randle De Falco (LL.M.) worked extensively on this file.
In July 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously rejected a "guilt-by-association approach to complicity", relying on, inter alia, the IHRP and CCIJ's arguments that there is no "complicity by association" under modern international criminal law.
The Supreme Court of Canada's decision can be found here.
A copy of the IHRP and CCIJ's factum can be found here.
A copy of the IHRP and CCIJ's application for leave to appeal can be found here.
Watch the oral argument before the Supreme Court of Canada here.