Mr. Suresh and the Evil Twin

Refuge

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 15-22

  Macklin, Audrey ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937375358     PISSN: 02295113     EISSN: 19207336     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.25071/1920-7336.21269     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. SCC 1 [hereafter cited by paragraph number].
2. SCC 2.
3. Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Rehman, [2001] 3 WLR 877.
4. Vadarlis v. MIMA and Ors, M93/2001 (27 November 2001).
5. Para. 4.
6. Immigration Act, ss. 19(1)(f)(iii)(B) and 19(1)(e)(iv)(C).
7. Anti-Terrorism Act, S.C. 2001, c.41.
8. Para. 16.
9. I mmi gr at i on Act, s s. 19(1) (e)(i i i), 19(1)(e)(iv)(C), 19)(1)(f)(ii), 19(1)(f)(iii)(B) and 19(1)(g).
10. Examples include the Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217; Daigle v. Tremblay, [1989] 2 SCR 530.
11. 1 SCR 177.
12. Para. 60. One might counter that s. 12 of the Charter, which prohibits cruel or unusual treatment or punishment, and s. 269.1 of the Criminal Code effectively incorporate the treaty prohibition.
13. Paras. 62–65. If the prohibition on torture cannot satisfy the test for jus cogens, one may well question whether any human rights norm ever could.
14. Para. 60.
15. Ahani v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, [2002] OJ No. 81 (CA). Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada denied, 17 May 2002.
16. Para. 54.
17. The principle also creates the potential for holding the state accountable for the foreseeable human rights consequences of privatization, or the delegation of state power to non-state actors.
18. Para. 77.
19. Para. 78.
20. United States v. Burns, [2001] 1 SCR 283, overruling Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1991] 2 SCR 486.
21. Para. 126.
22. Para. 96.
23. GA Res. 54/109. 9 December 1999, Annex, Art. 2.
24. Para. 98.
25. Para. 98.
26. Parliament had, in fact, already incorporated a much more extensive and potentially expansive definition in the Anti-Ter-rorism Act, passed 28 November 2001 (Bill C-36). On the other hand, the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act does not define terrorism.
27. Paras. 108, 110.
28. Paras. 85–87. The Court was responding to arguments presented in J. Hathaway and C. Harvey, “Framing Refugee Protection in the New World Disorder,” (2001) 34 Cornell Int’l L.J. 257, 289–90.
29. Para. 87. The Court elaborates by setting out the global nature of terrorist networks, and the need for international cooperation to respond to existing and future threats. Para. 88.
30. Paras. 89–90.
31. 3 WLR 877.
32. Quoted at Para. 33.
33. Para. 29.
34. Para. 39.
35. Para. 40.
36. Para. 32.
37. Para. 127.