Supreme Court of Canada to hear Safe Third Country Challenge
Canadian Council for Refugees, Amnesty International, Canadian Council of
Churches Media Release 29 September 2008

The Supreme Court of Canada is being asked to determine whether the
Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement is unconstitutional and violates
refugees’ rights, the Canadian Council for Refugees, Amnesty International
and the Canadian Council of Churches announced today.

On Friday 26 September, the three organizations, along with John Doe,
filed an application with the Supreme Court seeking leave to appeal the
Federal Court of Appeal’s ruling on the Safe Third Country Agreement. The
appeal court overturned an earlier Federal Court decision which struck
down the Agreement, on the grounds that the United States does not comply
with international human rights obligations.

The submissions highlight that refugees’ lives are at risk, as illustrated
by the case of a Honduran man. Turned away from the Canadian border in
2006 due to Safe Third, he was quickly deported by the US to Honduras,
where he was soon afterwards killed by the people he had been fleeing.
But for the Safe Third Country Agreement, he would likely be alive and
living in Canada today, with his wife and his son who was born after his
death.

The organizations argue that the Federal Court of Appeal:

* Based its decision on technicalities, thus failing to address the
key Charter and human rights issues.
* Incorrectly interpreted the law to allow Cabinet to designate a
country as safe even when it clearly is not, thus violating
international legal obligations towards refugees.
* Misunderstood what actually happens at the border when a refugee
claimant is rejected under the agreement, and thereby wrongly
concluded that an individual claimant could mount a legal challenge.

The organizations and John Doe launched the legal challenge of the Safe
Third Country Agreement in December 2005. Under the Agreement, most
refugee claimants arriving in Canada at the US border are ineligible to
make a claim in Canada. The organizations argued that some of those denied
entry to Canada are not able to receive protection in the US, because the
US does not comply with its international obligations towards refugees.
The Federal Court upheld those arguments. The Federal Court of Appeal did
not dispute that finding: instead it ruled that the lower court’s
conclusion “that the US does not ‘actually’ comply is irrelevant.”