The Exclusion Clause in Canada: Prioritizing Practical Expediency

Abstract

Abstract Applying the Canadian legal framework for refugees in compliance with binding international instruments has entailed significant challenges. In order to fulfil its dual obligations of protecting people under threat of torture and persecution, while denying refugee status to those responsible for such atrocities, Canada relies on the exclusion clause of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as a practical and expedient solution. This article provides a comprehensive review of the jurisprudence related to Canada’s exclusion system, examining the judicial reasoning of decisions issued by the Immigration and Refugee Board, the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada. The analysis endorses the position that Canada’s continuing prioritization of security trumps humanitarian aims by an overly broad application of article 1F of the Refugee Convention. The interpretation of Canadian judiciary can lead to the improper application of international law, prompting the need for a reassessment of the Canadian exclusion system 70 years after the adoption of the Refugee Convention.