¹ SC 2001, c 27.

² Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 150, Can TS 1969 No 6 (entered into force 4 June 1969).

³ Celestin v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 97 at para 54.

⁴ Ibid at paras 64–70.

⁵ Ibid at para 104.

⁶ Ibid at para 83.

⁷ Ibid at paras 84–87.

⁸ Ibid at paras 88–89.

⁹ Ibid at para 91.

¹⁰ Ibid at para 92.

¹¹ Ibid at paras 103–04, 111–13.

¹² See, however, Liew, Jamie Chai Yun & Galloway, Donald, Immigration Law, 2nd ed (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2015) at 362–63Google Scholar, noting that only about 3 percent of claimants are granted status by a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) officer, their methods have been criticized, and some claimants have lost access to a PRRA by virtue of legislative amendments.

¹³ Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya, 2020 SCC 5 at para 28 [Nevsun].

¹⁴ Ibid at para. 29, quoting R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 3), [2000] 1 AC 147 at 269 (HL).

¹⁵ Nevsun, supra note 13 at paras 30–33.

¹⁶ Ibid at paras 34–44.

¹⁷ Ibid at para 45.

¹⁸ See ibid at paras 46–55, concluding: “Even though all these cases dealt to some extent with questions about the lawfulness of foreign state acts, none referred to the ‘act of state doctrine’” (at para 55).

¹⁹ Ibid at para 47.

²⁰ Ibid at para 49. Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217, 161 DLR (4th) 385.

²¹ Ibid at para 57.

²² Ibid at para 60.

²³ Ibid at paras 62–63.

²⁴ Ibid at para 64.

²⁵ Ibid at para 69.

²⁶ Ibid at para 70.

²⁷ Ibid at paras 71–72; see also para 79 on the “crucial role” of national courts in “shaping norms of customary international law.”

²⁸ Ibid at para 73.

²⁹ Ibid at paras 74–95.

³⁰ Ibid at para 97.

³¹ Ibid at para 98.

³² Ibid at para 99 [emphasis in original].

³³ Ibid at paras 100–03.

³⁴ Ibid at para 105.

³⁵ Ibid at paras 105–13.

³⁶ Ibid at para 113.

³⁷ Ibid at para 114–15.

³⁸ Ibid at paras 117–22.

³⁹ Can TS 1976 No 47 [ICCPR].

⁴⁰ General Comment No 31: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13 (26 May 2004).

⁴¹ 2014 SCC 62 [Kazemi].

⁴² Nevsun, supra note 13 at para 122; State Immunity Act, RSC 1985, c S-18.

⁴³ Nevsun, supra note 13 at paras 123–26.

⁴⁴ Ibid at para 127; see also at para 131.

⁴⁵ Ibid at para 128.

⁴⁶ Ibid at para 176, citing R v Hape, 2007 SCC 26 [Hape].

⁴⁷ [2006] UKHL 16.

⁴⁸ Nevsun, supra note 13 at paras 188–91.

⁴⁹ Ibid at paras 193–203.

⁵⁰ Ibid at para 178.

⁵¹ Ibid at paras 179–82.

⁵² Ibid at para 269.

⁵³ Ibid at para 286.

⁵⁴ Ibid at para 296.

⁵⁵ Trendtex Trading Corp v Central Bank of Nigeria, [1977] 1 QB 529.

⁵⁶ Hape, supra note 46 at paras 36, 39.

⁵⁷ Kazemi, supra note 41 at para 61.

⁵⁸ Hersch Lauterpacht, “Is International Law a Part of the Law of England?” in Transactions of the Grotius Society, vol 25, Problems of Peace and War: Papers Read before the Society in the Year 1939 (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1940) 51 at 61, discussing The Franconia (R v Keyn), (1876) 2 Ex D 63.

⁵⁹ Canadian Civil Liberties Association v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 ONCA 243; British Columbia Civil Liberties Association v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 BCCA 228. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was granted in both cases; however, Canada discontinued both appeals: Canada (Attorney General) v Canadian Civil Liberties Assn, [2019] SCCA No 96; Canada (Attorney General) v British Columbia Civil Liberties Assn, [2019] SCCA No 308. See the discussion of these cases in Gib van Ert, “Canadian Cases in Public International Law in 2019” (2019) 57 Can YB Intl L 558 at 563–67.

⁶⁰ SC 1992, c 20.

⁶¹ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter].

⁶² As summarized in the reasons of the Court of Appeal for Ontario: see Brazeau v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 ONCA 184 at paras 4–5 [Brazeau].

⁶³ Ibid at para 7.

⁶⁴ Ibid at para 11.

⁶⁵ Ibid at paras 35–38, citing Vancouver (City) v Ward, 2010 SCC 27 [Ward]. The framework requires a court to determine (1) whether a Charter right has been breached; (2) whether damages would fulfil one or more of the related functions of compensation, vindication of the right, and/or deterrence of future breaches; (3) whether the state has demonstrated countervailing factors that would render damages inappropriate or unjust; and (4) the appropriate quantum of damages.

⁶⁶ Ward, supra note 65 at para 43.

⁶⁷ Brazeau, supra note 62 at paras 56, 59, 61.

⁶⁸ Ibid at para 67.

⁶⁹ Ibid at paras 67–68.

⁷⁰ Ibid at para 72.

⁷¹ Ibid at para 74.

⁷² Ibid at paras 76–78.

⁷³ Ibid at paras 79–81.

⁷⁴ United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), UNGAOR, 70th Sess, UN Doc A/Res/70/175 (2015).

⁷⁵ Brazeau, supra note 62 at paras 71, 82.

⁷⁶ Ibid at paras 83–86.

⁷⁷ Ibid at para 100.

⁷⁸ RSC 1985, c C-42.

⁷⁹ SC 2012, c 20.

⁸⁰ 2012 SCC 34.

⁸¹ Scope of Section 2.4(1.1) of the Copyright Act — Making Available (25 August 2017), CB-CDA 2017-085 at para 13 [Board Decision], citing the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty, 20 December 1996, 2186 UNTS 121, Can TS 2014 No 20 (entered into force 6 March 2002). See also Board Decision, ibid at para 137 (“one of the main purposes of the Bill was to implement the [WIPO Copyright Treaty] and [Performances and Phonograms Treaty, infra note 84]”).

⁸² Board Decision, supra note 81 at para 97.

⁸³ Ibid at para 97.

⁸⁴ Ibid at paras 98–99; World Intellectual Property Organization Performances and Phonograms Treaty, 20 December 1996, 2186 UNTS 203, Can TS 2014 No 21 (entered into force 19 May 2002) [Performances and Phonograms Treaty].

⁸⁵ Government of Canada, What the Copyright Modernization Act Means for Copyright Owners, Artists and Creators, online: <web.archive.org/web/20130123093243/ http://balancedcopyright.gc.ca/eic/site/crp-prda.nsf/eng/rp01189.html>.

⁸⁶ Quoted in Board Decision, supra note 81 at para 101.

⁸⁷ Ibid at para 110; Performances and Phonograms Treaty, supra note 84.

⁸⁸ It has long been Canadian (and British) practice not to ratify treaties that require changes to domestic law until those changes are secured by legislation. In the case of multilateral agreements that require implementation, Canada’s practice is to sign the treaty first (thus confirming its intent to become bound by the treaty at a later date), then to secure in domestic law (federal, provincial, or both) the necessary changes to ensure its performance of the treaty’s obligations and, finally, to ratify the treaty (thus bringing it into force internationally for Canada).

⁸⁹ Board Decision, supra note 81 at para 11.

⁹⁰ Ibid at para 138.

⁹¹ I have often criticized in these pages the practice of putting international law (particularly treaties) before courts by means of expert opinion evidence. There is increasing judicial support against this practice. See Turp v Canada (Foreign Affairs), 2018 FCA 133 at paras 82–89; Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya, 2020 SCC 5 at paras 89, 97–99 [Nevsun]. Whether the practice is equally problematic before administrative tribunals may depend on the practice and procedure of those bodies.

⁹² Board Decision, supra note 81 at para 142.

⁹³ Ibid at para 143.

⁹⁴ Ibid at para 145.

⁹⁵ Ibid at para 146.

⁹⁶ Ibid at para 147.

⁹⁷ Ibid at paras 115–16.

⁹⁸ Ibid at para 117.

⁹⁹ Entertainment Software Association v Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, 2020 FCA 100 at para 49 [Entertainment Software].

¹⁰⁰ Ibid at para 50.

¹⁰¹ Ibid at para 21.

¹⁰² Ibid at para 53.

¹⁰³ Ibid at paras 55–56.

¹⁰⁴ Ibid at para 59.

¹⁰⁵ Ibid at para 60.

¹⁰⁶ Ibid at para 63.

¹⁰⁷ Ibid at para 64.

¹⁰⁸ Ibid at para 66.

¹⁰⁹ Ibid at para 70.

¹¹⁰ Ibid at para 71.

¹¹¹ Ibid at para 74.

¹¹² Ibid at para 76 (heading).

¹¹³ Ibid.

¹¹⁴ Ibid at para 78.

¹¹⁵ Ibid at para 79.

¹¹⁶ Ibid at para 80.

¹¹⁷ Ibid at paras 81–85.

¹¹⁸ Ibid at para 89. Advice not heeded, it must be noted, by the Supreme Court of Canada in such cases as Hape, supra note 47; Dell Computer Corp v Union des consommateurs, 2007 SCC 34; Kazemi, supra note 41; Ktunaxa Nation v British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), 2017 SCC 54 [Ktunaxa Nation]; and, most recently, Quebec (Attorney General) v 9147-0732 Québec inc, 2020 SCC 32 [9147-0732 Québec].

¹¹⁹ Entertainment Software, supra note 99 at para 90.

¹²⁰ Ibid at para 91.

¹²¹ Ibid at para 93.

¹²² See Quebec (Minister of Justice) v Canada (Minister of Justice) (2003), 228 DLR (4th) 63 at para 91 (Que CA).

¹²³ E.g. Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act, SC 1999, c 35.

¹²⁴ E.g. Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 269.1 (performing Canada’s obligation to criminalize acts of torture as set out in art 4 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 10 December 1984, 1465 UNTS 85, Can TS 1987 No 36 (entered into force 26 June 1987) [Convention against Torture].

¹²⁵ See e.g. Canada–Namibia Tax Convention Act, SC 2013, c 27, s 2.

¹²⁶ E.g. Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, SC 1991, c 41 s 3(1).

¹²⁷ Hape, supra note 47 at para 53.

¹²⁸ Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR 817, 174 DLR (4th) 193 at para 70 [Baker] (quoting with approval Ruth Sullivan, Driedger on the Construction of Statutes, 3rd ed (Toronto: Butterworths, 1994) at 330). See also Hape, supra note 47 at para 53.

¹²⁹ B010 v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 58 at para 47 [B010].

¹³⁰ National Corn Growers Assn v Canada (Import Tribunal), [1990] 2 SCR 1324 at 1371–2, 74 DLR (4th) 449; Crown Forest Industries Ltd v Canada, [1995] 2 SCR 802 at para 44, 125 DLR (4th) 485.

¹³¹ Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.

¹³² The earliest judicial statement of the presumption I know of is Le Louis (1817), 2 Dods 210 at 239, 165 ER 1464 at 1473–74. By 1875, the first edition of Peter Benson Maxwell, On the Interpretation of Statutes (London: W Maxwell and Son, 1875) offered six pages of authorities to the effect that “every statute is to be so interpreted and applied, as far as its language admits, as not to be inconsistent with the comity of nations, or with the established rules of international law” (at 122).

¹³³ B010, supra note 129 at para 49.

¹³⁴ Schuyler Farms Limited v Dr Nesathurai, 2020 ONSC 4711 at para 66 [Schuyler Farms].

¹³⁵ Ibid at para 86.

¹³⁶ RSO 1990, c H.7.

¹³⁷ Schuyler Farms, supra note 134 at para 89.

¹³⁸ Ibid at para 91, citing Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 114 [Vavilov].

¹³⁹ GA Res 217 A (III), UN Doc A/810 (1948) at 71 [UDHR]. The court mistakenly says (Schuyler Farms, supra note 134 at para 92) that Canada acceded to the UDHR in May 1976, apparently confusing the UDHR with the ICCPR, supra note 39.

¹⁴⁰ Can TS 1976 No 46.

¹⁴¹ Schuyler Farms, supra note 134 at para 92.

¹⁴² United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas, UN Doc A/HRC/RES/39/12 (28 September 2018).

¹⁴³ Schuyler Farms, supra note 134 at para 92, citing Baker, supra note 128 at para 70.

¹⁴⁴ Schuyler Farms, supra note 134 at paras 93–95 [citations omitted].

¹⁴⁵ International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, 18 December 1990, 2220 UNTS 3 (entered into force 1 July 2003).

¹⁴⁶ Convention No 184 Concerning Safety and Health in Agriculture, 21 June 2001, 2227 UNTS 241 (entered into force 20 September 2003).

¹⁴⁷ 9147-0732 Québec, supra note 118.

¹⁴⁸ Ibid at paras 30–38.

¹⁴⁹ Schuyler Farms, supra note 134 at paras 89–92, citing R v Appulonappa, 2015 SCC 59 at para 90; Vavilov, supra note 138 at para 114; Baker, supra note 128 at para 70.

¹⁵⁰ Gib van Ert was counsel to an intervener in this appeal.

¹⁵¹ Charter, supra note 61, s 12.

¹⁵² 9147-0732 Québec, supra note 118 at para 51.

¹⁵³ Ibid at para 68, quoting R v Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 SCR 295 at 344, 18 DLR (4th) 321.

¹⁵⁴ 9147-0732 Québec, supra note 118 at para 75.

¹⁵⁵ Ibid at paras 81–87.

¹⁵⁶ Ibid at paras 88–95.

¹⁵⁷ UDHR, supra note 139.

¹⁵⁸ ICCPR, supra note 39.

¹⁵⁹ 1144 UNTS 123.

¹⁶⁰ 213 UNTS 221.

¹⁶¹ 9147-0732 Québec, supra note 118 at paras 114–15, citing Kontakt-Information-Therapie v Austria, Application No 11921/86 (12 October 1988) at 81; Identoba v Georgia, Application No 73235/12 (12 May 2015) at para. 45.

¹⁶² 9147-0732 Québec, supra note 118 at para 117, citing Convention against Torture, supra note 124.

¹⁶³ 9147-0732 Québec, supra note 118 at paras 118–22.

¹⁶⁴ Ibid at para 123.

¹⁶⁵ Ibid at para 98.

¹⁶⁶ Ibid .

¹⁶⁷ Ibid at para 99; see also para 101.

¹⁶⁸ Ibid at para 100.

¹⁶⁹ Ibid at para 102 [emphasis in original].

¹⁷⁰ Ibid at para 3.

¹⁷¹ Ibid at para 5.

¹⁷² Ibid at para 19.

¹⁷³ Ibid.

¹⁷⁴ Ibid at para 20.

¹⁷⁵ Ibid at para 22, quoting S Beaulac & F Bérard, Précis d’interprétation legislative, 2nd ed (Montreal: LexisNexis, 2014) at paras 5, 36 [emphasis added by the majority].

¹⁷⁶ 9147-0732 Québec, supra note 118 at para 28 [emphasis in original].

¹⁷⁷ Ibid at para 23. The meaning of the latter point is left unexplained, as though it were somehow self-evident. It is not. The sovereignty of Canada as a state in the international legal order is not threatened in any way by how the country’s top court decides to interpret a part of its constitution in light of international legal considerations.

¹⁷⁸ Ibid at para 24.

¹⁷⁹ Ibid at para 25, quoting Jutta Brunnée & Stephen J Toope, “A Hesitant Embrace: The Application of International Law by Canadian Courts” (2002) 40 Can YB Intl L 3 at 41.

¹⁸⁰ 9147-0732 Québec, supra note 118 at paras 30–31, quoting Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.), [1987] 1 SCR 313 at 348–49, 38 DLR (4th) 161.

¹⁸¹ 9147-0732 Québec, supra note 118 at para 31.

¹⁸² Ibid at paras 32–36.

¹⁸³ Ibid at para 37, quoting Ktunaxa Nation, supra note 118 at para 66.

¹⁸⁴ 9147-0732 Québec, supra note 118 at para 38.

¹⁸⁵ 9147-0732 Québec, supra note 118 at paras 41–42.

¹⁸⁶ Ibid at para 47.