Febles v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2014) 464 N.R. 7 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Wagner, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 25, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 464 N.R. 7 (SCC);2014 SCC 68

Febles v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2014), 464 N.R. 7 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2014] N.R. TBEd. OC.030

Luis Alberto Hernandez Febles (appellant) v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent) and Amnesty International, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, Canadian Council for Refugees and Canadian Civil Liberties Association (interveners)

(35215; 2014 SCC 68; 2014 CSC 68)

Indexed As: Febles v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Wagner, JJ.

October 30, 2014.

Summary:

Febles, a Cuban citizen, was admitted to the U.S. as a refugee. He pleaded guilty in 1984 and 1993 to two assaults with a deadly weapon, and served his sentences. The U.S. revoked his refugee status and issued a removal warrant. Febles entered Canada in 2008 and claimed refugee protection. The Immigration and Refugee Board held that Article 1F(b) (the "serious criminality" exclusion) of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, incorporated in Canada by s. 98 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, barred Febles from refugee protection because of the crimes he committed in the past. Febles applied for judicial review. He argued that the Board erred in law because it failed to consider whether he was rehabilitated and posed a present danger to the Canadian public.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported at 397 F.T.R. 179, dismissed the application. The Court certified the following question: "When applying Article 1F(b) of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, is it relevant for the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board to consider the fact that the refugee claimant has been rehabilitated since the commission of the crime at issue?" Febles appealed the decision.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 442 N.R. 290, answered the certified question in the negative and dismissed the appeal. The Board correctly concluded that whether a refugee claimant who had served his sentence posed a present danger was not relevant for determining the seriousness of a crime for the purpose of Article 1F(b). Febles appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Abella and Cromwell, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The majority judgment agreed with the conclusion of the Board that only factors related to the commission of the criminal offences could be considered, and whether those offences were serious within the meaning of Article 1F(b). On that interpretation of Article 1F(b), Febles did not qualify for refugee protection because of the serious crimes he committed in the U.S. before seeking admission to Canada as a refugee. Abella and Cromwell, JJ., dissenting, drew a different interpretive conclusion. "While Articles 1F(a) and (c) represent absolute barriers to refugee status, the human rights approach to interpretation mandated by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties ... suggests a less draconian interpretation of Article 1F(b). In my view, except in the case of very serious crimes, an individual should not automatically be disqualified from the humanitarian protection of the Refugee Convention under this provision and should be entitled to have any expiation or rehabilitation taken into account."

Aliens - Topic 3.2

Definitions and general principles - International Conventions and obligations - [See third Aliens - Topic 1330.3 ].

Aliens - Topic 1330.3

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Disqualifications - Serious non-political crime - Febles, a Cuban citizen, was admitted to the U.S. as a refugee - He pleaded guilty in 1984 and 1993 to two assaults with a deadly weapon, and served his sentences - The U.S. revoked his refugee status and issued a removal warrant - Febles entered Canada in 2008 and claimed refugee protection - The question was whether Article 1F(b) (the "serious criminality" exclusion) of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, incorporated in Canada by s. 98 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, barred him from refugee protection because of the crimes he committed in the past - Febles' position was that he had served his sentences, was now rehabilitated, and posed no danger to Canada - The Supreme Court of Canada, Abella and Cromwell, JJ., dissenting, agreed with the conclusion of the Board, upheld in the courts below, that only factors related to the commission of the criminal offences could be considered, and whether those offences were serious within the meaning of Article 1F(b) - On that interpretation of Article 1F(b), Febles did not qualify for refugee protection because of the serious crimes he committed in the U.S. before seeking admission to Canada as a refugee - Abella and Cromwell, JJ., drew a different interpretive conclusion than did the majority - "While Articles 1F(a) and (c) represent absolute barriers to refugee status, the human rights approach to interpretation mandated by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties ... suggests a less draconian interpretation of Article 1F(b). In my view, except in the case of very serious crimes, an individual should not automatically be disqualified from the humanitarian protection of the Refugee Convention under this provision and should be entitled to have any expiation or rehabilitation taken into account."

Aliens - Topic 1330.3

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Disqualifications - Serious non-political crime - The question in this appeal was whether Article 1F(b) (the "serious criminality" exclusion) of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, incorporated in Canada by s. 98 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), barred the appellant from refugee protection because of the crimes he had committed in the past - The Supreme Court of Canada set out and discussed the three procedures under the IRPA that were relevant - The first procedure (ss. 100 to 102) determined whether a claim for refugee protection was eligible for referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board - That procedure did not bar the appellant's claim for refugee protection because the Minister did not file an opinion of dangerousness - The second procedure (ss. 95 to 98) determined whether a claimant was entitled to refugee protection - Section 98 required the Board to reject a refugee protection claim by any person referred to in Articles 1E or 1F of the Refugee Convention - Finally, even where a refugee protection claim was rejected by application of s. 98 and a removal order was issued, a claimant might still apply to the Minister to stay the removal order - "[T]he Minister must balance any danger to the public in Canada against the risk that a claimant would face death, torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if removed from Canada to the place designated in the removal order (ss. 97, 112, 113(d)(i) and 114(1)(b) of the IRPA)." - See paragraphs 7 to 10.

Aliens - Topic 1330.3

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Disqualifications - Serious non-political crime - The issue in this case was whether "has committed a serious ... crime" in Article 1F(b) of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugee Convention) was confined to matters relating to the crime committed, or should be read as also referring to matters or events after the commission of the crime - Section 98 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act incorporated Article 1F(b) - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "Interpretation of an international treaty that has been directly incorporated into Canadian law is governed by Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties ... . Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention states how interpretation of the Refugee Convention should be approached - by considering: (1) the 'ordinary meaning' of its terms; (2) the context; and (3) the object and purpose of the Refugee Convention." - The Court concluded that "these considerations, as well as the Collected Travaux Préparatoires of the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1989), vol. III ... and the jurisprudence, lead me to conclude that the phrase 'has committed a serious ... crime' refers to the crime at the time it was committed. Article 1F(b), in excluding from refugee protection people who have committed serious crimes in the past, does not exempt from this exclusion persons who are not fugitives from justice, or because of their rehabilitation, expiation or non-dangerousness at the time they claim refugee protection." - See paragraphs 11 to 15.

Aliens - Topic 1330.3

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Disqualifications - Serious non-political crime - The appellant and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (intervener) argued that the "serious criminality" exclusion in Article 1F(b) of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees was confined to fugitives from justice (which the appellant, having served his sentences, was not) - The Supreme Court of Canada, in dismissing the appeal, concluded that "[t]he ordinary meaning of the terms used in Article 1F(b) - 'has committed a serious ... crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country ...' - refers only to the crime at the time it was committed. The words do not refer to anything subsequent to the commission of the crime. There is nothing in the text of the provision suggesting that it only applies to fugitives, or that factors such as current lack of dangerousness or post-crime expiation or rehabilitation are to be considered or balanced against the seriousness of the crime." - See paragraph 17.

Aliens - Topic 1330.3

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Disqualifications - Serious non-political crime - Article 1F(b) of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees excluded any person from refugee protection "with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that: ... he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee" - The Supreme Court of Canada, in dismissing the appeal, held that "[t]he mandatory wording of the Article ('shall not apply') chosen by the parties to the Refugee Convention unequivocally supports the view that all a subscribing country can consider in determining whether a claimant is excluded under Article 1F(b) is whether the claimant committed a serious crime outside the country of refuge prior to applying for refugee status there. Nothing in the words used suggests that the parties to the Refugee Convention intended subsequent considerations, like rehabilitation, expiation and actual dangerousness, to be taken into account." - See paragraph 18.

Aliens - Topic 1330.3

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Disqualifications - Serious non-political crime - Article 1F(b) of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees excluded any person from refugee protection "with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that: ... he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee" - The appellant argued that the context of Article 1F as a whole suggested that Article 1F(b) was limited to fugitives from justice (which the appellant, having served his sentences, was not) - Against that, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration argued that the word "committed" should be given the same meaning in Articles 1F(a) and 1F(b): those provisions applied to anyone who had ever committed the offences - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the immediate context supported the Minister's interpretation - "It would be anomalous if the word 'committed' were ascribed different meanings in Articles 1F(a) and 1F(b) and the use of consistent language in these two articles was meant to evince an intention on the part of the drafters that they be applied inconsistently. As nobody has suggested that Article 1F(a) is confined to fugitives, it follows that Article 1F(b) would similarly not be restricted to fugitives." - See paragraphs 19 to 23.

Aliens - Topic 1330.3

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Disqualifications - Serious non-political crime - Article 1F(b) of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention) excluded any person from refugee protection "with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that: ... he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee" - The appellant argued that Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention supported his view that Article 1F(b) was confined to fugitives from justice (which the appellant, having served his sentences, was not) - Article 33(2) allowed a host country to expel a refugee who had been "convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime" and "constitutes a danger to the community of that country" - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the argument fails to persuade. Article 33(2) is an exception to the Article 33(1) principle of non-refoulement of persons whose need for protection has been recognized (or not yet adjudicated). That is why the drafters used different language in Article 33(2) than they did in Article 1F(b) ... [T]he discrepancy and resultant absurdity contended by [the appellant] do not exist. In any event, different concerns arise when a country is asked to take in claimants who have committed crimes abroad ... "- See paragraphs 24 to 26.

Aliens - Topic 1330.3

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Disqualifications - Serious non-political crime - Article 1F(b) of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention) excluded any person from refugee protection "with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that: ... he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee" - The appellant, in support of his argument that Article 1F(b) was confined to fugitives from justice (which the appellant, having served his sentences, was not), argued that a broad construction of exclusion provisions risked subverting the Refugee Convention's humanitarian aims - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the purposes of the Refugee Convention as a whole did not support the argument that Article 1F(b) was confined to fugitives - "While exclusion clauses should not be enlarged in a manner inconsistent with the Refugee Convention's broad humanitarian aims, neither should overly narrow interpretations be adopted which ignore the contracting states' need to control who enters their territory. Nor do a treaty's broad purposes alter the fact that the purpose of an exclusion clause is to exclude. In short, broad purposes do not invite interpretations of exclusion clauses unsupported by the text." - See paragraphs 27 to 31.

Aliens - Topic 1330.3

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Disqualifications - Serious non-political crime - Article 1F(b) of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention) excluded any person from refugee protection "with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that: ... he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee" - The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that "Article 1F(b) serves one main purpose - to exclude persons who have committed a serious crime. This exclusion is central to the balance the Refugee Convention strikes between helping victims of oppression by allowing them to start new lives in other countries and protecting the interests of receiving countries. Article 1F(b) is not directed solely at fugitives and neither is it directed solely at some subset of serious criminals who are undeserving at the time of the refugee application. Rather, in excluding all claimants who have committed serious non-political crimes, Article 1F(b) expresses the contracting states' agreement that such persons by definition would be undeserving of refugee protection by reason of their serious criminality." - See paragraph 35.

Aliens - Topic 1330.3

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Disqualifications - Serious non-political crime - The issue in this appeal was whether the appellant was ineligible for refugee protection because of crimes committed before he came to Canada - In the view of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the serious criminality exclusion in Article 1F(b) of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention) was triggered whenever the refugee claimant had committed a serious non-political crime before coming to Canada, i.e., it was not confined to fugitives from justice - The appellant argued that the Travaux préparatoires to the Refugee Convention (the working documents preceding the Refugee Convention's adoption) supported his view that Article 1F(b) was confined to fugitives - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the conditions for use of the Travaux préparatoires were not present in this case - Article 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties only allowed for recourse to "supplementary means of interpretation" in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of Article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to Article 31 left the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or led to a result which was manifestly absurd or unreasonable - The meaning of Article 1F was clear - In any event, the Travaux préparatoires supported the Minister's interpretation - See paragraphs 37 to 42.

Aliens - Topic 1330.3

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Disqualifications - Serious non-political crime - Different interpretations of Article 1F(b) of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees were in contention - The appellant argued that the "serious criminality" exclusion in Article 1F(b) was confined to fugitives from justice (which, having served his sentences, he was not) - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "While the jurisprudence is inconclusive as to the precise scope and all of the rationales, there is agreement that Article 1F(b) is not limited to fugitives. After reviewing the foreign jurisprudence, I conclude that the interpretation adopted by the German Federal Administrative Court and the European Court of Justice, that Article 1F(b) excludes anyone who has previously committed a serious non-political crime, is the most consistent with both the prevailing trend in the case law and the text of the provision. ... A review of the jurisprudence demonstrates the difficulty of confining Article 1F(b) to a narrow category of people, like fugitives from justice, and confirms that it applies, as its words suggest, to anyone who has ever committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee. ... I conclude that the dominant tide of the jurisprudence is inconsistent with the conclusion that Article 1F(b) operates so as to exclude only fugitives, as well as with the proposition that post-crime conduct must be balanced against the crime's seriousness. Of particular note, none of the international courts accept the dicta in Ward and Pushpanathan that exclusion of fugitives is the only rationale for Article 1F(b). In my view, the Ward and Pushpanathan obiter statements should no longer be followed." - See paragraphs 43 to 59.

Aliens - Topic 1330.3

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Disqualifications - Serious non-political crime - The Supreme Court of Canada commented on how a crime's seriousness should be assessed under Article 1F(b) of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees - "[W]here a maximum sentence of ten years or more could have been imposed had the crime been committed in Canada, the crime will generally be considered serious. ... However, this generalization should not be understood as a rigid presumption that is impossible to rebut. Where a provision of the Canadian Criminal Code ... has a large sentencing range, the upper end being ten years or more and the lower end being quite low, a claimant whose crime would fall at the less serious end of the range in Canada should not be presumptively excluded. Article 1F(b) is designed to exclude only those whose crimes are serious. ... While consideration of whether a maximum sentence of ten years or more could have been imposed had the crime been committed in Canada is a useful guideline, and crimes attracting a maximum sentence of ten years or more in Canada will generally be sufficiently serious to warrant exclusion, the ten-year rule should not be applied in a mechanistic, decontextualized, or unjust manner." - See paragraphs 61 and 62.

Aliens - Topic 1330.3

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Disqualifications - Serious non-political crime - The exclusion under scrutiny in this appeal was the one in Article 1F(b) of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which excluded individuals from the Refugee Convention where there "are serious reasons for considering that ... he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee." - The appellant argued that his suggested interpretation of Article 1F(b) should be adopted because it created harmony within the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), and ensured consistency with the Charter - Section 98 of the IRPA expressly incorporated Article 1F(b) - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "This argument conflates two different interpretive exercises. ... First, what does Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention mean? For this first inquiry, the statutory scheme and the Charter are not relevant. Second, what does s. 98 of the IRPA mean? For this second inquiry, the domestic statutory context and the Charter are potentially relevant." - See paragraphs 63 to 69.

Statutes - Topic 501

Interpretation - General principles - Purpose of legislation - Duty to promote object of statute - [See eighth Aliens - Topic 1330.3 ].

Statutes - Topic 515

Interpretation - General principles - International convention - Effect of - [See third Aliens - Topic 1330.3 ].

Statutes - Topic 2614

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Modern rule (incl. interpretation by context) - Legislative or statutory context - [See third Aliens - Topic 1330.3 ].

Words and Phrases

Has committed a serious non-political crime - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the phrase "has committed a serious non-political crime" in Article 1F(b) of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, incorporated into s. 98 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 - See paragraphs 13 to 15.

Cases Noticed:

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [paras. 11, 91].

Thomson v. Thomson, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 551; 173 N.R. 83; 97 Man.R.(2d) 81; 79 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 11].

Januzi v. United Kingdom (Secretary of State for the Home Department), [2006] 2 A.C. 426; 345 N.R. 345; [2006] UKHL 5, refd to. [para. 16].

Ezokola v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2013] 2 S.C.R. 678; 447 N.R. 254; 2013 SCC 40, refd to. [paras. 22, 92].

R. v. Prague Airport et al.; Ex parte European Roma Rights Centre et al., [2004] N.R. Uned. 238; [2005] 2 A.C. 1; [2004] UKHL 55, refd to. [para. 29].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689; 153 N.R. 321, refd to. [paras. 32, 94].

Bundesrepublik Deutschland v. B., [2010] EUECJ C-57/09, refd to. [paras 40, 117].

T. v. United Kingdom, [1996] 2 All E.R. 865; 198 N.R. 174 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 50].

A.H. v. United Kingdom (Secretary of State for the Home Department), [2013] UKUT 00382, refd to. [paras. 50, 117].

Dhayakpa v. Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, [1995] FCA 1653; 62 F.C.R. 556 (Aust.), refd to. [paras. 51, 119].

Ovcharuk v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, [1998] FCA 1314; 88 F.C.R. 173 (Aust.), refd to. [para. 51].

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v. Singh, [2002] HCA 7; 209 C.L.R. 533 (Aust.), refd to. [paras. 52, 119].

Attorney General (Minister of Immigration) v. Tamil X, [2010] NZSC 107; 1 N.Z.L.R. 721, refd to. [paras. 53, 117].

Jayasekara v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 4 F.C.R. 164; 384 N.R. 293; 2008 FCA 404, refd to. [para. 58].

Chan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] 4 F.C. 390; 260 N.R. 376 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 67].

Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3; 281 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 67].

Yugraneft Corp. v. Rexx Management Corp., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 649; 401 N.R. 341; 482 A.R. 1; 490 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 90].

Société Telus Communications et al. v. Peracomo Inc. et al. (2014), 457 N.R. 75; 2014 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 90].

Al-Sirri v. United Kingdom (Secretary of State for the Home Department), [2013] 1 A.C. 745; 438 N.R. 219; [2012] UKSC 54, refd to. [para. 92].

SRYYY v. Minister of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenuous Affairs, [2005] FCAFC 42, 220 A.L.R. 394, refd to. [para. 117].

K.K. v. United Kingdom (Secretary of State for the Home Department), [2004] UKIAT 00101, refd to. [para. 122].

United Kingdom (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v. A.A., [2005] UKIAT 00104, refd to. [para. 122].

R. (ex rel. JS) (Sri Lanka) v. United Kingdom (Secretary of State for the Home Department), [2010] 3 All E.R. 88; 402 N.R. 163; [2010] UKSC 15, refd to. [para. 123].

Statutes Noticed:

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001 c. 27, sect. 98 [para. 2].

Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, 606 U.N.T.S. 267 [para. 72].

United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Can. T.S. 1969 No. 6, preamble [para. 104]; art. 1F(b) [para. 2]; art. 33(2) [para. 24].

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810, at 71 (1948), art. 14 [para. 106].

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Can. T.S. 1980 No. 37, arts. 31, 32 [paras. 12, 38].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Goodwin-Gill, Guy S., and McAdam, J., The Refugee in International Law (3rd Ed. 2007), pp. 175, [para. 48]; 179 [para. 62].

Goodwin-Gill, Guy S., The Refugee in International Law (2nd Ed. 1996), p. 101 [para. 47].

Grahl-Madsen, Atle, The Status of Refugee in International Law, Refugee Character (1966), vol. I, p. 290 [para. 111].

Hathaway, James C., and Foster, Michelle, The Law of Refugee Status (2nd Ed. 2014), p. 544 [para. 101].

United Nations, Collected Travaux Préparatoires of the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, The Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons (1989), vol. III [para. 15].

United Nations, Declaration of States Parties to the 1951 Convention and or its 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, HCR/MMSP/2001/09, p. 3 [para. 98].

United Nations, High Commissioner for Refugees, Background Note on the Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (2003), para. 73 [para. 127].

United Nations, High Commissioner for Refugees, Guidelines on International Protection: Application of Exclusion Clause: Article 1F of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (September 4, 2003), para. 2 [paras. 92, 97, 99].

Counsel:

Jared Will and Peter Shams, for the appellant;

François Joyal, for the respondent;

Jennifer Klinck, Perri Ravon, Michael Sabet and Justin Dubois, for the intervener, Amnesty International;

John Terry, Ryan Lax and Rana R. Khan, for the intervener, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees;

Aviva Basman and Alyssa Manning, for the intervener, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers;

Catherine Dauvergne, Angus Grant and Pia Zambelli, for the intervener, the Canadian Council for Refugees;

Peter Edelmann, Lorne Waldman and Aris Daghighian, for the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

Solicitors of Record:

Jared Will, Montreal, Quebec; Peter Shams, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Attorney General of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent;

Power Law, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, Amnesty International;

Torys, Toronto, Ontario; UNHCR, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees;

Refugee Law Office, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers;

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Canadian Council for Refugees;

Edelmann & Co. Law Office, Vancouver, British Columbia; Waldman & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

This appeal was heard on March 25, 2014, before McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Wagner, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court delivered the following judgment and reasons for judgment, dated October 30, 2014:

McLachlin, C.J.C. (LeBel, Rothstein, Moldaver and Wagner, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 70;

Abella, J., dissenting (Cromwell, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 71 to 136.