Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

SCCInfoBox
case-name=Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
full-case-name=Veluppillai Pushpanathan v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
heard-date=October 9, 1997
decided-date=June 4, 1998
citations= [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982
ruling=Appeal Allowed.
SCC=1997-1998
Majority=Bastarache J. (paras. 1-77)
JoinMajority=L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and McLachlin JJ.
Dissent=Cory J. (paras. 78-158)
JoinDissent=Major J.

"Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)", [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the standard of review in Canadian administrative law. The Court held that a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board should be reviewed on the standard of "correctness".

Background

Veluppillai Pushpanathan arrived in Canada seeking refugee status from his native country of Sri Lanka. The claim was never settled as he eventually got permanent resident status. After some time, Pushpanathan was arrested in Canada and convicted of conspiracy to traffic in a narcotic. He was sent to prison and was eventually paroled. He tried to renew his refugee claim but a conditional deportation order was issued. The Immigration and Refugee Board denied his application as his criminal record violted art. 1F(c) of the "Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees".

Pushpanathan appealed the decision of the Board. The major question concerned what standard of review should be applied to the Board's decision.

Issues

1. What is the standard of review to be applied to the Immigration and Refugee Board's decision regarding Pushpanathan.

2. How do the rules of treaty interpretation apply to the determination of the meaning of Article 1F(c) of the UN Refugee Convention?

3. Does Pushpanathan's act of drug trafficking fall within the definition of "acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations"?

Judgment of the Court

Justice Bastarache, writing for the majority, found that the conviction did not violate the Convention and sent the matter to the Convention Refugee Determination tribunal.

tandard of review

Bastarache noted that even though the lower courts did not address it, the standard of review must be established before considering the other issues. [para.25] He reviewed the "pragmatic and functional approach" from "U.E.S., Local 298 v. Bibeault" (1988) and the three available standards of review. He dismissed the alternative approach of addressing "jurisdictional issues", when they should be separate from normal analysis. [para. 28]

In his view, since the issue is "a serious question of general importance" there is no other standard but that of "correctness".

Article 1F(c)

Traifficking

References

External links

*
* [http://www.hri.ca/fortherecordcanada/vol3/casepushpanatan.htm case summary]