|
|
HEARING OUR CHILDREN'S VOICES:
MAKING THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN A
REALITY IN CANADA'S REFUGEE PROCESS1
International Association of Women Judges Conference
Ottawa, Ontario
May 22, 1998
by
Nurjehan Mawani
Chairperson
Immigration and Refugee Board
(Check against delivery)
Introduction
Since the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child
(CRC), the world has not witnessed an improvement in the conditions
facing children. They continue to be targeted as victims of torture,
assassination, political disappearance, conscription and forced labour.
According to the UNHCR, 80% of the world's 22 million refugees and persons
of concern to the UNHCR, are women and children. At the Canadian Immigration
and Refugee Board (IRB) we see children who are fleeing difficult, sometimes
appalling circumstances. In 1997-98 we received 5,772 claims from children
seeking asylum of which a very small proportion were unaccompanied.
In 1997-98, 243 unaccompanied children had their claims finalized at
the IRB.
While the CRC may not as yet have had an effect on the conditions in
which tens of millions of children live, it has had a tremendous impact
in raising the consciousness of the nations of the world. It has promoted
awareness and sensitivity to issues affecting children and shaped new
perspectives on the rights of children in society. The enumeration of
a child's rights in the CRC shifted the perspective of the international
community to recognition of children as individuals with human rights
entitlements. It falls to us then to help give expression to these entitlements
and to give children an opportunity to have their voices heard.
Here we are, poised at the eve of the millennium, and we have to ask
ourselves; Are we doing enough for our children? What are we doing to
make the rights enunciated in the CRC a reality for them? We as decision-makers,
in matters that affect children, have the ability to make a difference.
It has been said that the main issue in the advocacy of children's rights
is to introduce procedures to ensure that children's interests are taken
into account when decisions are made.
We at the IRB have long been concerned with the vulnerable position
of child refugee claimants. As a result, in 1994, a Working Group on
Child Refugee Claimants was established to study the particular challenges
posed by children in the refugee determination system. The Working Group
organized educational programs to sensitize decision-makers to the special
needs of children, and monitored trends in refugee producing countries
from which large numbers of unaccompanied children were fleeing. At
the time, Canada was receiving significant numbers of unaccompanied
children as claimants. It became clear that children, especially those
without family, should not be treated in the same way as adults in the
determination process and that more appropriate procedures needed to
be developed. We decided that the best way of doing this was to issue
guidelines to decision-makers which would ensure that the best interests
of the children concerned would be taken into account in the determination
process and that children would have a means of expressing their views
in a safe and supportive environment. In this way, the refugee determination
process would be brought in synch with the main principles enunciated
in the CRC.
Let me explain at this juncture, how guidelines fit into our refugee
determination process. The Chairperson of the IRB is given statutory
authority to issue guidelines for the purpose of assisting decision-makers
in carrying out their duties. Guidelines are issued where there is a
need to clarify complex legal issues, establish new practices, or promote
consistency in decision-making. While they are not binding on decision-makers,
they are persuasive and the expectation is that in the absence of compelling
reasons to the contrary, they will be followed in every applicable claim.
Before I talk to you about the Guidelines on Child Refugee Claimants
specifically, let me take a few moments to tell you about the IRB. The
IRB is an independent tribunal established by the Parliament of Canada
and has the responsibility, among other matters, to determine refugee
claims fairly and expeditiously. The IRB receives approximately 25,000
refugee claims annually which are decided by about 170 decision-makers,
referred to as Board members ("members"), who are appointed
by the Government for a fixed term.
Once the claim is received by the IRB, the file is reviewed by a refugee
claims officer (RCO) who is part of the staff and whose role is to assist
members in obtaining and verifying relevant information at the direction
of the member. The RCO also assists members in the hearing where necessary.
Our process is more in the nature of an inquiry into the person's claim
with a greater emphasis on pre-hearing information gathering and investigation.
If the decision is positive, the claimant obtains refugee status and
can apply for permanent residence in Canada and thereafter for Canadian
citizenship. If the decision is negative, the claimant can apply to
have the decision reviewed by the Federal Court of Canada. This is a
limited right of review and requires leave of the Court. Less than 1%
of all our decisions are set aside by the Court. The failed refugee
claimant can also apply to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
to be allowed to remain in Canada on humanitarian or other grounds.
Turning Rights into Reality
A. The Guidelines on Child Refugee Claimants
In September 1996, the IRB met the challenge posed by the CRC and issued
guidelines on procedural matters involving minor claimants.2
The preparation of the Guidelines followed extensive consultation with
child psychiatrists, lawyers and NGOs involved with refugee children.
The decision was taken, after much consideration, that the Guidelines
would apply to matters of procedure only and not deal with substantive
issues in refugee determination. Implicit in that decision was the recognition
that a child has the same substantive rights as an adult when making
a claim. What was missing from our process was not equality of rights
or access to the system for children, as that was always present, but
a format through which to address the special needs of children in the
process, and an ability to shape the process to meet the requirements
of child claimants.
At the outset, the principle of the best interests of the child, as
articulated in Article #3 of the CRC, was adopted as the primary
consideration when determining what procedures to follow when dealing
with the claim of a child. In choosing whether to adjourn a hearing,
hear from the child directly or rely on a trusted doctor to act as a
liaison, or choose a less formal venue, a decision-maker must be guided
first and foremost by the question of what is in the best interests
of the child. Sometimes the hearing room itself is too intimidating
for a child and the process would be better served if the hearing took
the form of an informal interview in an ordinary room. In claims where
children arrive with their families it is rarely in the best interests
of the child to be present for that portion of the hearing at which
a parent will testify as to torture or other degrading treatment endured.
In fact, in some situations, it may be in the best interests of a child
not to testify at all or not to appear before the decision-maker, but
rather to have the decision based on other evidence adduced. Thus the
Guidelines allow for flexibility in decisions regarding the process
which would best serve the child's interests.
One of the first, and most important, decisions made by a decision-maker
with regard to the "best interests" of the child is the designation
of a representative for minor claimants. Our legislation sets out that
any child under the age of 18 must have a Designated Representative
(DR). The child and his or her DR are present throughout the hearing
and have full opportunity to present evidence, hear the case, and respond
to any issues that arise. The DR is appointed at the earliest possible
opportunity in order to assist the child through the process by actively
pursuing the child's interests in the claim and by instructing counsel.
Where a child is unaccompanied by an adult, the Guidelines require a
pre-hearing conference to be held within 30 days of the referral of
the claim to the IRB. At the conference the DR is appointed or approved
and the hearing process is explained to the child. The decision-makers
have the ultimate authority in confirming the choice for DR, and in
making that decision, they are guided by the question of whether the
proposed DR will act in the best interests of the child.
This often poses a particular challenge to decision-makers. If a child
arrives unaccompanied, and someone puts him or herself forward as a
DR, how can the decision-maker be satisfied that this person will have
the best interests of the child at heart? This concern is addressed
at the pre-hearing conference where the decision-maker can pose questions
to the DR to gage both his /her commitment to the child and availability
of resources and time to devote to assisting in the claim. Additionally,
questions can be asked of the child to elicit a sense of whether the
child feels comfortable and safe with the DR. In a recent case of an
unaccompanied 17 year-old girl from the Middle-East, the proposed DR
was the 30 year-old male cousin of the claimant with whom she resided.
Given the tradition of cousins marrying cousins in some mid-Eastern
cultures, the members wanted to ascertain if there might be a conflict
of interest for the cousin to act as DR. After questioning the claimant
alone, the members were satisfied that the claimant was not sent to
Canada to marry her cousin and there was no impediment to the cousin
acting in the claimant's best interests3.
Particular challenges face decision-makers when neither the child nor
the DR know the reason why the child was sent to claim asylum in Canada
and neither is able to shed light on the basis for the child's fear
of persecution. This is a situation where to the extent possible, documentary
evidence on country conditions will be relied upon, and the testimony
of other persons who might be able to shed light on the situation facing
the child if he or she returns. At all times the decision-makers must
keep in mind that the child may not know the circumstances leading to
his or her flight from home. The child's parents may have decided to
spare the child from frightening details and excessive worry. The Guidelines
encourage the reliance on alternative evidence - relevant evidence that
comes from sources other than the claimant or DR - and advise decision-makers
to place more weight on the objective elements of the claim than on
the claimant's ability to articulate his or her fear.
Unfortunately, the same circumstances that create refugee children,
also force many children to mature quickly and make difficult adult
choices. Children living through war often become combatants and participants
in activities that could be violations of the international laws governing
wartime conduct. Not long ago, Board members were faced with a claim
in which a child of 11 joined a terrorist organization and had been
an active member for three years. Members grappled with whether the
child should be excluded from consideration under the Convention because
he was someone who had knowingly participated in a crime against humanity.
The members found that as there was ample evidence that the organization
the child joined was clearly directed to a brutal purpose, the very
act of joining meant the child shared in the common purpose of the organization.
A reviewing court cautioned that when excluding children from Convention
refugee status, special attention must be given to the consideration
of whether they have the requisite mens rea to knowingly participate
in brutal acts. The court wanted the members to indicate how the child
shared in the common purposes of the organization and the extent of
his knowledge of violent acts.4
"Like an adult claimant, a child claimant has a right to be heard."
This principle enunciated in the Guidelines implements a key concept
in the CRC. Article 12 of the CRC states that a child has the right
to express his or her views in all matters affecting the child and has
the right to be heard in any judicial or administrative hearing affecting
him or her. This right is a reality for children appearing before the
IRB. As long as the age and maturity of the child permit, the child
has a right to tell his or her story directly and is in fact encouraged
to do so. In situations where the child is too young, or lacking in
maturity to testify, the designated representative may testify on the
child's behalf. If it is felt that the child is too young to understand
the nature of an oath, the child is encouraged to tell his or her story
in any event, and the appropriate weight is given to the testimony.
As a result of the Guidelines, many decision-makers are more comfortable
with hearing unsworn testimony from children and understand that such
testimony is worthy of serious consideration as long as the decision-maker
is comfortable that the child understands the importance of telling
the truth. In this way, a child has the opportunity to be a full participant
and have a voice in the process affecting his or her rights.
Questioning of a child must be done in a sensitive manner, and where
possible in an informal atmosphere. Great latitude has been given to
children as a result of the Guidelines directive to decision-makers
to keep in mind that children do not observe, express and remember events
or details in the same way as adults. Members have relied upon the Guidelines
to disallow a detailed cross-examination of a child at a resumption
date one year after he gave his initial testimony.5
Where members have serious credibility concerns with a child's testimony,
they have given notice of such to counsel and allowed counsel to re-examine
the child.6 In situations
where direct testimony is insufficient for the purpose of determining
the claim, members may rely on alternative evidence, such as evidence
of others similarly situated, evidence from other relatives, social
workers, teachers etc. This route has been taken by members where the
claimants have been too young to testify. In this way it is ensured
that the child has full opportunity to express his or her views and
to have those views taken into account in the decision-making process
regarding the claim.
Our Guidelines distinguish between those children who arrive with relatives
and those who arrive without a relative. The former group of children
is considered "accompanied", while the latter is termed "unaccompanied".
The significance in this differential categorization is that special
procedures become mandatory when dealing with an unaccompanied child.
While every minor appearing before the Board requires a DR, if the
child is unaccompanied there must be a pre-hearing conference at which
the DR is approved. Moreover, there is a mandatory requirement to notify
the appropriate child welfare authorities in every case of an unaccompanied
child. This is in keeping with Article 22 of the CRC, which sets out
that a child making a refugee claim is entitled to humanitarian assistance.
While the IRB's responsibility is only to ensure the child receives
a fair hearing, there are so many other concerns to address in the case
of an unaccompanied child such as housing, school and health care, which
are beyond its mandate. In notifying the provincial authorities responsible
for child welfare it is hoped that the child will receive all the assistance
needed before, after and during the process of making a refugee claim.
As child welfare is a provincial responsibility in Canada, there is
divergence among the provinces in how these children are monitored.
For example, in Quebec a case-worker is immediately assigned to a child's
file and is an active participant in all processes facing the child.
In Quebec, the provincial authorities maintain an active interest in
the child's immigration issues. In Ontario, authorities are involved
if a child is 16 years or younger, has been made a ward of the Court
or if there is a suspicion of abuse or neglect.
The categorization of children in the Guidelines as "accompanied"
or "unaccompanied" in terms of the procedures before the IRB
underscores several important concepts found in the CRC. The bulk of
child refugee claimants before the IRB arrive with their families as
a unit. In these cases, each child in the family is a claimant in her
or his own right, but it is usually the parent of the child that establishes
the claim and provides the testimony. While each person in the family
is an independent claimant and has the opportunity to establish good
grounds for fearing persecution independent of the others, the usual
scenario is that the claims are profoundly interrelated and stem from
the experiences of the "principal claimant", more often than
not, the parent.
In these situations, the decision-maker can decide whether or not it
is necessary to hear from the children in the family, after giving consideration
to many factors. First and foremost, is the principle of the best interests
of the child. The decision-maker must ask, given the age and maturity
of the child, whether it would be best not to hear from the child and
to base its decision on the information provided by the parents, or
older siblings. It could be very traumatic for a child to be present
at a hearing where a parent is recounting details of torture, which
the family wishes to keep from the child. Also it could be devastating
for a child to feel that he or she did not perform well when being questioned
at the hearing, and that as a result the child is responsible for the
failure of the family's claim.
Great sensitivity has to be exercised in these situations to balance
the rights of the child as an individual claimant and the rights of
the family to decide what is best for their child. When children are
with their families, we respect the parent's rights and duties, in accordance
with Article #5 of the CRC, to make decisions with respect to their
children. It is almost always one of the parents who act as the DR for
the children in the family. The only exception to this designation is
where the decision-maker feels it would not be in the child's best interests
to keep the parent as the DR. At the same time however, we recognize
that each child is an independent claimant, and may have a successful
claim irrespective of his or her other family members.
When the head of a family successfully establishes a well-founded fear
of persecution, the children usually fall under the umbrella of the
particular social group of "family" which establishes their
claims based on the evidence brought forward in the parent's claims.
In these situations it is rarely necessary to hear from the children,
especially if it is felt to be in their best interests not to actively
participate in the hearing process. If the head of family (principal
claimant) fails to establish a well-founded fear of persecution, the
child can still establish a well-founded fear of persecution. This is
not uncommon in Sri Lankan claims where the high-risk group tend to
be young Tamil males who are targets of recruitment attempts by rebels
and, because of their age, are suspected of being rebels by the government.
In this kind of situation, the parents may not have a well-founded fear
of persecution, but their 11 year old child may.
The approach advocated in the Guidelines gives substance to the core
rights enunciated in the CRC. The best interests of the child is given
primacy in any decision on process affecting a child claimant, and due
deference is given to the right of a child to express his or her views
in the process of claim determination which so acutely affects the child.
In ensuring the child has a meaningful opportunity to tell his/her story,
the Guidelines direct decision-makers to be sensitive to the peculiarities
of a child's ability to testify, and to explain the process and shape
the process to meet the child's needs.
Can More Be Done?
A. A Human Rights Analysis of Persecution for Children
Despite our clear commitment to integrating the CRC into our decision-making
psyche, and the great strides taken to ensure that children have a voice
in the process that determines their claims, there is still room for
more. Since the Guidelines are procedural only and do not address substantive
decision-making, there is no direction to refer to the CRC when defining
the kinds of activities that may be persecutory for children. Nonetheless,
our jurisprudence indicates that there is a growing practice of using
the rights set out in the CRC as a measure of a child's human rights
entitlements, derogation from which may result in a finding of a well-founded
fear of persecution.7
There is little debate that the violation of core rights, such as the
right to life, liberty and security of the person are persecutory. Some
debate ensues, however, on whether the violation of other human rights,
such as the right to education or health care, lead to a finding of
persecution. The International Bill of Rights, the central universal
human rights instrument, distinguishes between civil and political rights
from which little if any derogation is tolerated and economic, social
and cultural rights from which derogation is often tolerated. What is
unique about the CRC is that it is the first instrument to combine these
two previously separated categories of human rights and present them
in a single, comprehensive human rights document. Its effect is to underscore
the importance of respecting all of a child's human rights. This lends
weight to the argument that when it comes to children, the denial of
economic, social and cultural rights may have a devastating effect,
and so a violation of any right in the CRC should be weighed for its
potentially persecutory effect on the child.
The fact that members have been directed by the Federal Court to refer
to the CRC where appropriate in deciding the claims of children, alerts
them to this universality of rights for children. In Sahota8,
a decision of the Federal Court that pre-dates the Guidelines, the IRB
was directed to consider the CRC when assessing the reasonableness of
an internal flight alternative. The claimant was a 17 year-old Sikh
who would have to live alone and continue his education away from family,
in a culture that expected single males to live at home until married.
Violations of human rights for adults that may not be serious or systematic
enough to constitute persecution, may well be persecutory when applied
to children. For example, in a claim where an Afghani child established
that as a female she would be denied the right to education, the reviewing
court held that education was a basic human right and directed the IRB
to find that she was a Convention refugee.9
Similarly, a teen who would have been denied access to education, employment
and social services in China because of his perceived political opinion
was found to have a well-founded fear of persecution.10
The emerging trend appears to be that any child deprived of the right
to education is potentially a Convention refugee.
With the growth in ratification of international human rights instruments,
there is a concurrent acceptance that refugee determination must incorporate
a human rights analysis. In other words, the elements of the Convention
refugee definition require a human rights reading in order to give them
full meaning. So too, any refugee claim of a child should be assessed
in light of the rights set out in the CRC. Of course, each claim for
refugee status is assessed on a case by case basis, and in addition
to establishing that a serious violation of a fundamental human right
has been suffered, the claimant must also satisfy the decision-maker
that the state has failed in its obligation to provide him or her with
protection. Simply put, the violation of a claimant's human rights may
in some cases lead to a finding that the claimant fears persecution,
but it is the absence of state protection for the claimant that makes
his or her fear of persecution well-founded.
B. Children as a Particular Social Group
Many of the problems facing children can be attributed to their extreme
vulnerability to adverse and difficult conditions. As a group, children
have no political voice, and no economic clout. It is precisely this
lack of status on the domestic and world stages that the CRC attempts
to remedy by empowering children with rights. It stands to reason then,
if children have been marginalized, that they can fall within the definition
of "particular social group". Mr. Justice LaForest of the
Supreme Court of Canada, in Ward11
wrote that the category of particular social group must be given a human
rights reading. This ground must be approached from an anti-discrimination
perspective. Thus explained, a child denied his or her rights under
the CRC, simply because he or she is a child, would have a link to a
Convention ground. This notion has gained acceptance in our jurisprudence.
In a recent IRB decision, the member found that a 12- year old boy feared
persecution because of his membership in a particular social group:
impoverished children. The government's indifference to poor children's
deprivation of education, medical attention, food and secure protection
placed the claimant at risk of being the victim of malnutrition, crime,
drugs and prostitution.12
Similarly, Somali children without the protection of family have been
held to be a particular social group because of their acute vulnerability.13
This development is significant as it includes children whose human
rights stand to be violated because of their vulnerable status, but
might otherwise not have a nexus to a Convention ground. The example
of a poor child forced into servitude for no reason but his/her status
as a powerless individual illustrates this point. The CRC makes it clear
that children have the right not to be forced into labour, but if the
child is so enslaved, and it is not because of political opinion, ethnicity
or any other specific ground, the availability of social group is critical.
Our human rights perspective in approaching the claims of refugees
is underscored in both our Gender Guidelines and our Guidelines on Child
Refugee Claimants. This is highlighted in a claim that involved a girl-child
facing possible female genital mutilation (FGM). Our Gender Guidelines
were the first in the world to recognize that FGM was a breach of a
fundamental human right and could constitute persecution, and of course
a girl-child facing such a violation would be viewed no differently
than an adult female. A 1994 case involving a Somali mother and her
children, illustrates this approach14.
The mother feared returning to Somalia and losing custody of her two
children, a daughter, aged 10, and a son, 7. According to documentary
evidence, children belong to the clan of their father, and for this
reason a divorced woman would not be awarded custody of her children.
She also feared she would be powerless to prevent her daughter from
being subjected to genital mutilation against the mother's wishes. At
her refugee hearing, the mother described the terror of her own experience
of genital mutilation and the resulting health problems she experienced
upon reaching adulthood. With respect to the claim of the ten-year-old
female, the panel found that her rights to personal security would be
grossly infringed if she were forced to undergo genital mutilation.
They cited Article 3 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
They also considered the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child, which explicitly protects children from acts of cruelty
and torture, and requires states to take steps to abolish traditional
practices prejudicial to the health of children.
C. The Challenge of Family Unity
The IRB is often challenged by situations where in a family of claimants,
some family members meet the criteria for refugee status while others
do not. The challenge comes from the humanitarian desire to keep families
together and the legal requirement that each claimant meet the test
for refugee status on the merits. Situations sometimes arise where,
for example, a family has had one or two children born in a safe country.
While the other family members can establish a basis for a well-founded
fear of persecution in their country of nationality, in order to be
successful, the children born in the safe country would have to establish
good grounds to fear persecution in that country. The natural inclination
is to look for ways to have the whole family similarly determined. Our
Immigration Act, however, requires a claimant to establish
a well-founded fear of persecution against each country of his or her
nationality. This is based on the principle that the protection of Canada
is only engaged when there is a failure of each of the claimant's countries
of nationality to provide protection from the persecution feared.
In a very recent IRB decision15,
a Roma mother and her children were found to be Convention refugees.
The father, however, was ethnic Hungarian and had no fear of persecution
if returned to Hungary. The father of course did not want to return
without his family. The members held that, in Canada, family unity was
not a basis for recognizing a person as a Convention refugee. The finding
was based on federal court jurisprudence which addressed the principle
of family unity and concluded that there is no authority to extend the
Convention refugee definition to encompass family unity.16
A similar problem is faced by refugee claimants who have a child born
in Canada while awaiting adjudication of their claim. The UNHCR Handbook
is very clear on this point in paragraph 181, that children born in
an asylum country cannot be part of the determination process. This
raises the spectre of Canadian-born children having to return to their
parent's country of nationality or be separated from their parents.
Legal arguments have been made that to separate parents from children
in these circumstances contravenes articles 3 and 9 of the CRC. Since
Canada has ratified the CRC, but not adopted any of its provisions into
domestic law, the question is whether the rights therein are enforceable
substantive rights.
The Federal Court of Appeal17
has held that the CRC has no application in the decision to deport parents
who have Canadian-born children because the Convention is not part of
the law of Canada. In addition, children have no Charter right not to
be separated from their parents. Leave to appeal this decision was refused
by the Supreme Court of Canada. A similar decision18
was made in the case of a woman with Canadian children facing deportation
to Jamaica. The Federal Court of Appeal once again addressed the question
of whether the best interests of the child must be considered by immigration
authorities given that the CRC has not been expressly incorporated into
Canadian law. It was held that the CRC does not have the legal effect
of limiting the Minister's discretionary authority to deport persons
who have Canadian-born children. This case is currently under appeal
to the Supreme Court of Canada.
This is clearly a different approach than that taken by the Australian
High Court in Teoh19,
where the ratification of the CRC was held to give rise to a legitimate
expectation that the Minister would act in conformity with principle
of the best interests of the child. A very recent decision of the Ontario
Court General Division, which does not have jurisdiction over immigration
matters, exercised its parens patreae jurisdiction to stop the deportation
of a woman with Canadian children20.
The court said that the Federal Court in reviewing deportation decisions
must consider the "best interests" principle found in the
CRC. The law in this regard seems to be evolving in Canada and we await
the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in this matter. At the IRB,
we feel that we have already taken major steps in the direction of integrating
international human rights norms into our decision-making by the issuance
of Guidelines, and we look forward to continued developments in this
very important area.
IN CONCLUSION
As we look ahead to the new millennium, we at the IRB feel a sense
of accomplishment and hope; accomplishment for the way in which our
refugee system has incorporated the core concepts of the CRC into our
processes, and hope because we believe our commitment to children is
the first step in turning children's rights into reality. As decision-makers
in matters that affect the lives of children, we have an enormous responsibility
to ensure that the rights of children are both recognized and validated.
It is a responsibility we are proud to have assumed, and to which we
pledge our continued efforts.
- I would like to acknowledge
the assistance of Lori Disenhouse of our Legal Services in the preparation
of this paper.
- Guidelines on Child Refugee
Claimants: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues, Immigration and Refugee
Board, September 30, 1996
- CRDD T95-07396, Bubrin,
Chan, May 27, 1997
- Saridag v. M.E.I., (F.C.T.D., no.
IMM-5691-93) McKeown, October 3, 1994
- CRDD T95-06517, Cram,
Mouammar, July 14, 1997
- CRDD U97-00027, Bourassa,
June 6, 1997
- CRDD T94-00416, Ramirez,
Winkler, August 25, 1994, where the psychological abuse of a child
was held to contravene the CRC and was persecutory within the Convention
refugee definition.
- Sahota, Amrik Singh v. M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. Imm3313-98), McKeown, June 3, 1994
- Ali, Shaysta-Ameer v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-3404-95), McKeown, October 30, 1996
- CRDD U95-03968, Schlanger,
August 28, 1996
- Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward
[1993] 2 S.C.R. 689 at 739
- CRDD A95-00633, Showler,
January 28, 1998
- CRDD T96-06291, Seevaratnam, September 2,
1997; CRDD T95-00479, Morrisson, Griffith, July
5, 1996
- T93-12198, Ramirez,
McCaffrey, May 10, 1994.
- CRDD T97-00096, MacPherson,
Cooke, January 22, 1998
- Casetellanos v. Canada, [1995] 2
F.C. 190
- Langner v. M.E.I. (1995) 184 N.R.
230
- Baker v. Canada [1997] 2 F.C. 127
(C.A.)
- Minister of State for Immigration and
Ethnic Affairs v. Ah Hin Teoh (1194-5) 183 CLR 273
- Francis v. M.C.I., (Ontario Court
General Division, File no. 97-CV-137137), McNeely, May
6, 1998
|