Summary Table of Canadian Decisions by the UN Human Rights Committee

Case Name

Date

Representati
on

Relevant
Article(s
)
3

Area(s) of
Law

Key Words

Admissible
?

Violation?

100-150 Word Description of Case

C.E.
vs.
Canada

1977-0825

Self

Tort

Right to
Appeal,
Compensation
, Access to
Justice

No

Self

3
5.2 (b)

Criminal
Aboriginal

Extradition

No

1980-0402

Self

10.1
10.2
13
14.1
14.3
14.5
17

Criminal

Mistrial
Extradition
Race

Yes

Yes

A.D.
vs.
Canada

1980-0930

Counsel:
R.B.

1
27

Aboriginal

SelfDetermination
,
Protection of
Minorities

No

A.S.
vs.
Canada

1981-0331

Self

12
17
23
26

Immigration

Protection of
Family,
Equality
Before the
Law,

No

The author is a Canadian citizen that claimed his right to a fair trial was violated as
he did not have the financial means to pursue the matter before the courts and he
had been denied legal aid by the Legal Aid Society of British Columbia. The Supreme
Courts decision to dismiss the appeal was based ono the grounds that the incident
in question (the compensation of the author after an injury occurring from falling of
a ladder while working in a school workshop), was the authors own fault. The Human
Rights Committee declared the case inadmissible ratione temporis as the incident in
question occurred before the Covenant came into efect in Canada on August 19 th
1976.
The author is a North American native Indian that claimed his extradition from
Canada to the United States constituted violations of his rights laid out in the
Covenant. He claimed that in the process of his extradition, government officials had
fabricated evidence. The author also believed that Canada was never in a position to
extradite him because of his involvement in the Lakota nation, whose sovereignty
Canada has failed to recognize he claims. The Committee ruled any mistreatment as
inadmissible ratione temporis and his failure to bring his other claims to possible
domestic remedies culminated in the communication becoming inadmissible.
The author, Larry Pinkley, was an American citizen serving a prison sentence for
extortion in Canada. The author was a black political activist that was arrested in
Canada after he was found guilty of extortion involving spying on groups illegally
bringing back valuable loot from African countries. The author claimed he was the
victim of a mistrial and that he had been subjected to ill-treatment because of his
race while in a state correction center. The Committee found the claims sufficiently
substantiated and declared violations under the Convenant following the exhaustion
of domestic remedies.
The author, A.D or Jigapten of Senteoi Mawaiomi, is the Grand Captain of the
Mikmaq tribal society. He claims that he and his peoples rights under Article 1,
referring to self-determinism, have been violated. The author alleges that the State
party has denied and continues to deny the right of self-determinism, and
furthermore, the Mikmaq tribe have been allegedly deprived of a means of
subsistence. The author seeks a remedy including the recognition of the Mikmaq
people as a separate state and freedom to govern and educate themselves as they
please. The Committee declared the case inadmissible after the author was unable
to demonstrate the authorization of speaking on behalf of the whole Mikmaq tribe,
and the authors failure to substantiate claims.
The author is a Polish-born Canadian citizen claiming that her eforts at reuniting her
family in Canada have been in vain due to breaches of rights laid out in the
Covenant.
The authors daughter and grandson were unable to immigrate to
Canada because she did not have a profession or an employment guarantee, despite
the willingness of the author to purchase a confectionary store in order to create an
employment opportunity if need be. The author claims specifically that the alleged
breaches of her rights are with regards to article 12, 17, 23, and 26 of the Covenant.
The HRC noted that the authors daughter is not a Canadian citizen and therefore
cannot be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter ones country and that the
author and her daughter have been separated for 17 years and thus cannot claim

L.P.
vs.
Canada

1979-0914

Pinkney
vs.
Canada

Summary Table of Canadian Decisions by the UN Human Rights Committee

unlawful interference. As well, there was no evidence for any discrimination
occurring in the immigration process. The communication was thus declared
inadmissible.

Lovelace
vs.
Canada

1981-0730

Self

27

Aboriginal

Protection of
minorities
Gender
Equality

Yes

Yes

J.K.
vs.
Canada

1984-0926

Self

14.1
3

Criminal

Fair Trial

No

J.H.
vs.
Canada

1985-0412

Self

2
26

Discriminatio
n

Language
Discrimination
,
Armed Forces

No

Y.L.
vs.
Canada

1986-0408

Self

14.1
26

Social
Benefits

Fair Trial

No

The author is an aboriginal woman whom recently lost her status as an Indian due to
marriage with a non-Indian man. The author claims that this policy is discriminatory
against women because Indian men do not lose their status when they marry nonIndian women. As well, the author successfully claims that without her Indian status
her rights to associate and practice her desired culture (of which she inarguably
belongs) are violated. Canada finally introduced new legislature in 1985, 11 years
after the Supreme Courts initial decision to originally uphold Canadas previous
policy.
The author is a Canadian citizen that claims his rights to a fair trial were violated
after he was convicted of committing arson with the motive of collecting insurance
on the property. The author cites new evidence indicating that he was out of the
country during the time of the fire and could not therefore be held responsible for
the fire. The authors appeal however was denied and claims his lawyers original
incompetence has cost him injustice surmounting to the future struggles he will have
to face as a convicted criminal. These include not being able to run for public office,
unequal access to public services, and disadvantages to getting jobs. The Committee
ruled
the
communication
inadmissible
rat`````````````````````````````````````````````````````ione temporis as the event in
question occurred before the introduction of the Covenant in Canada as well the
Committee does not find itself in a position to be reevaluating facts of his trial.
The author is a Canadian national and retired member of the Canadian Armed Forces
that claims he and other monolingual English speakers have been discriminated
against in the army. Specifically, he points out the promotion policies in the army
that require a certain percentage of members speak French as a mother tongue. The
authors domestic eforts appealed futile when in 1984 a new administrative order
changed mother tongue to first official language; a move that the author
constitutes as purely cosmetic. The Committee decided that the author did not
clearly indicate how he was personally a victim and since it will not review national
legislation in abstracto, the communication was declared inadmissible.
The author is a Canadian citizen appealing to the HRC, alleging that he a victim of
violations to his rights protected under article 14.1 and 26 of the ICCPR. These
violations allegedly occurred following the authors dismissal from the Canadian
Army because he was diagnosed with mental disorders. The authors subsequent
application for a disability pension was denied by the Pension Review Board and the
authors requests for a full report of his health diagnosis were never complied with.
The author claims this refusal amounts to a violation under article 26. While the
author was unaware of the possibility to bring his appeal before the Supreme Court,
the HRC ruled that the Canadian legal system does contain provisions to ensure the
author has the right to a fair hearing in his situation. Therefore, the communication

Summary Table of Canadian Decisions by the UN Human Rights Committee

was ruled inadmissible for non-exhaustion.

J.B., P.D.,
L.S., T.M.,
D.P., D.S.
vs.
Canada

1986-0718

Counsel:
Alberta Union
of Provincial
Employees

22

Labour

Right to Strike
Rights of
Association

No

S.H.B.
vs.
Canada

1987-0324

Self

2
3
7
8
14
15
23
26

Legal
Discriminatio
n

Child Custody,
Gender
Equality

No

R.L.
vs.
Canada

1989-0407

Self

28

Legal
Discriminatio
n

Right to Fair
Trial,
Equality
before the
Law

No

G.T.
vs.
Canada

1992-0823

Self

26

Employment
Discriminatio
n

Discriminative
Hiring,
Conscience
Rights

No

The authors are members of the executive committee of the Alberta Union of
Provincial Employees. They claim that their rights protected by Article 22 have been
violated by Canada following the prohibition of being able to strike for provincial
public employees. The legislation that passed in 1977 was allegedly too broad and
employees of the Alberta Liquor Board were liable to criminal action should they
choose to strike. The Union had exhausted domestic means and furthermore had
turned to the ILO for an opinion which recommended that not all public services
deserved equal status as integral to the running of the national community. Despite
this, Canada stated that nowhere in Article 23 does it explicitly declare the right to
strike. The Committee referred to the traveux prepatoires and concluded that it
cannot be deduced that the original writers of the Covenant ever intended to
guarantee the right to strike. As such, the Committee declared the communication
inadmissible ratione materiae.
The author is an Egyptian born man that became a naturalized citizen of Canada
whom alleges that his rights protecting him from discrimination have been violated.
The author says that the government of Canada has failed to take the proper action
required to prevent discrimination based of sex in the implementation of laws
governing child custody. According to the author, in Canada there exists a blatant
discrimination against men at the dissolution of marriage. More specifically the
author claims that the trial judge in his child custody case has been sexist and racist;
possibly because the author is Egyptian and his ex-wife was born and raised in the
judges hometown. The Committee noted that even in the particular circumstances
of the author (which leaves the author in doubt about the efectiveness of domestic
remedies), he cannot be absolved from exhausting them despite their futile
appearance. The Committee thus ruled the communication inadmissible.
The author is a Canadian citizen that claims to be the victim of human rights
violations specific to the Covenant. The author alleged that during his bankruptcy
proceedings his rights of equality before the law and to a fair trial were denied. The
author stated that the judges in both the courts and the trial relied on false evidence
and gave political favouring to a top lawyer of a prestigious law firm. The Committee
ruled that the author did not have enough substantiation for the claims and
moreover, the author had admitted to not exhausting all the possible domestic
remedies.
The author is a Canadian citizen from Toronto that claims that in general his human
rights have been violated by the Board of Education for the City of North York. The
authors problems started when he was designated surplus and transferred to the
Roman Catholic School Board for potential relocation. He was given a time period to
submit a report rejecting to teaching in the school ground for conscience reasons.
However, given the authors limited options for employment he risked missing the

Summary Table of Canadian Decisions by the UN Human Rights Committee

time period in order to try his new job. After deciding that he was morally against
teaching the Catholic views on sex education, conception, birth control, abortion,
and AIDS, it was too late for the author to transfer unless he risked unemployment.
The Committee declared the case inadmissible for non-exhaustion reasons.
H.T.B.
vs.
Canada

1993-0819

Self

26
9

Criminal

Right to Fair
Trial

No

Atkinson et
al
vs.
Canada

1995-1031

Counsel:
Roger Cyr,
John Stroud,
and veterans

2.3 (a)
26

Social
Benefits

Efective
remedy,
Nondiscrimination

No

Lacika
vs.
Canada

1995-1103

Self

14
26

Discriminatio
n

Fair trial,
Nondiscrimination

No

Canepa
vs.
Canada

1997-0403

Counsel:
B. Jackman

17
2.3
7

Immigration
Criminal

Deportation,
Torture / illtreatment

Yes

No

The author is a Canadian citizen that was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment for
the first degree murder of his wife. His wife was shot after they pulled onto the
shoulder of highway 402 when a man approached the car to allegedly rob them. It
was the second occasion in a week that their car had pulled onto the shoulder
behind a blue Nova with men waiting; only the first occasion had drawn enough
suspicion for a cop to pull over and check that they were okay with their flat tire. The
author claims that a violation occurred when his appeal for a new trial was dismissed
despite his newfound defense claiming insanity. The Committee ruled that the author
was not discriminated against in his ability to appeal because his defense had
already been available to the author during the first trial but he had made a
conscious decision not to use it.
The authors are Canadian citizens that are former POWs since their capture by
Japanese forces while in service as members of the Canadian Hong Kong Forces in
1941. The authors claim their rights protected under Article 26 were violated as they
believe that the Hong Kong veterans were being discriminated against in their right
to collect pension compensation. The State party argued ratione temporis made all
communications inadmissible regarding the 1952 peace treaty with Japan that
declared Japan free of obligations to compensate their POWs. The committee agreed
and further added that all claims of discrimination, regarding which pension plans
the Hong Kong veterans were allowed to collect, were too unsubstantiated to be
admissible.
The author is a Canadian man looking for compensation due to alleged violations
under article 14 and 26 of the covenant. The author claims to have been
discriminated against by a construction company that built their house to substandard workmanship quality and discrimination from the judiciary courts in Canada
for automatically dismissing his claims. The committee ruled the case inadmissible
due to a lack of substantiation providing any proof of discrimination that led to a
violation.
The author is an Italian-born man that had lived in Canada since the age of five. He
faced deportation because of his 37 non-violent criminal charges he had been
convicted with by the age of 31, during which, he had permanent resident status.
The author claimed his rights were violated including: his ability to freely move
though his own country, his rights to maintain correspondence with his family, and
his rights to be free of torture and degrading treatment. The case was deemed
admissible because all the domestic alternatives for the author had been exhausted.
However, the committee ruled that there were no violations in deporting the author
back to his own country. There was insufficient evidence to prove that a life in Italy
would cause irreparable damage and his family did not include a wife or children
depending on him so the circumstances could be worked around.

Summary Table of Canadian Decisions by the UN Human Rights Committee

Singh
vs.
Canada

1997-0814

Self

7
14.2
14.3a
17
26

Discriminatio
n

Discrimination
, Failure to
Presume
Innocence

No

Byrne and
Lazarescu
vs.
Canada

1999-0417

Self

23
24
26

Discriminatio
n

Child Support,
Womens
Rights,
Equality
Before the
Law

No

Gillan
vs.
Canada

2000-0717

Counsel:
V. Calderhead

14
2
26

Criminal

Failure to
Presume
Innocence.
Fair hearing,

No

Devgan
vs.
Canada

2000-1031

Legal Agent:
H. Kopyto

2
3
7
14

Criminal

Fair Trial,
Right to
Appeal

No

Romans
vs.
Canada

2004-0809

Counsel:
Lorne
Waldman

6
7
10
23

Immigration
Criminal

Deportation

No

Ranjit Singh is a Canadian citizen that claimed to be a victim of violations to Articles

7, 14.2, 14.3a, 17, and 26 of the Covenant. These violations, according to the author,
occurred after he claimed he was unfairly dismissed from a graduate program. The
graduate department stated that their dismissal was related to the author`s hostile,
abusive, and threatening behavior, and he had not met the minimum grade
threshold (he had a 69% and needed 70%). However, the author believes it was
because they believed him to be guilty of setting an office on fire while an instructor
was sleeping in it; despite the author never formally being charged for it. The
Committee ruled the case inadmissible for a lack of substantiation demonstrating
how he was discriminated against, while his clean criminal record counterdemonstrated his point that he was presumed guilty.
The authors are Canadian citizens claiming that they are victims of a violation of
Articles 23, 24, and 26 of the Covenant. For both women, they are the custodial
parents that are receiving child support payments from their ex-husbands. In both
situation however, despite the Court orders requiring the ex-husbands to contribute
more money, after the authors had to pay income tax on the child support payments
and the ex-husbands were able to claim deductibles on those payments, the exhusbands were actually paying less. The authors see this as discrimination against
them as custodial mothers. The Committee agreed that this situation held
discrimination but since it was a domestic court decision that determined the child
support payments, it was not the position of the Committee to reevaluate the facts
that should determine the proper child support payments. Thus, the Committee ruled
the communication inadmissible.
The author is a Canadian citizen claiming his rights protected under Article 14 were
violated when he was found guilty by a youth court for illegal possession of liquor
because the relevant legislative framework violated his right to be presumed
innocent. The case was determined to be inadmissible because of the nature of his
arrest led to no reasonable doubt over his guilt (a police search discovered 6 beers
hidden in his clothes while he was 15); therefore, it was determined his rights were
not violated.
The author is a Canadian citizen that claimed he was a victim of violations regarding
Articles 2,3,7, and 14 of the Covenant after he was found guilty of fraud and an
account of of making a false statement involving separate complainants. The author
claims that his right to appeal was denied and that the courts had placed him in
Double Jeopardy by giving a compensation order at the criminal trial after a civil
action had settled the matter. The Committee determined that the author had
waived his right to appeal and that any other evidence of violations were too
unsubstantiated.
The author, Steve Romans, is a Jamaican born permanent resident of Canada that at
the time of the communication was awaiting deportation to Jamaica following
convictions of breaking and entering, assault, and trafficking narcotics. The author
claims that a deportation back to Jamaica would constitute violations under articles
6, 7, 10, and 23 of the Covenant. The author alleges that these violations would
occur given that the author and his entire family have lived in Canada for 30 years,
has no friendly or business connections, and the authors personal history of mental
illness versus Jamaicas terrible record with treating mental illness. In Jamaica, all
violent patients with mental illness are regularly placed in prison where they are
subject to a significant amount of abuse. The authors pending appeal domestically,

Summary Table of Canadian Decisions by the UN Human Rights Committee

meant that the case was ruled inadmissible by the Committee.

Howard
vs.
Canada

2005-0726

Counsel:
Peter
Hutchins of
Hutchins,
Soroka &
Dionne

27

Aboriginal

Protection of
Minorities

Yes

No

Queenan
vs.
Canada

2005-0726

Self

16
26
6
7

Abortion

Abortion,
Right to Life
of Unborns

No

Obodzinsk
y
vs.
Canada

2007-0319

Self

Tort

Torture / illtreatment

Yes

No

Cridge
vs.
Canada

2009-0327

Self

14.1
17
26

Discriminatio
n

Equality
Before the
Law,
Fair hearing

No

The author is an aboriginal man seeking justice for perceived violations of his rights
protected under article 27 to practice in community with others his culture as a
minority. Admissibility limited the scope of the case to cover the authors conviction
of fishing illegally without an Ontario Fishing Regulations license of his reserve. The
author claimed that there was too few fish locally to fish and the Ontario regulations
that had to be followed of the reserve were to culturally restricting. The Committee
determined that the fishing regulations do not amount to a de facto denial of his
rights under Article 27 and therefore ruled it could not declare a violation under the
Covenant.
The author, Peter Queenan, is a Canadian citizen claiming that the State party is
guilty of violating unborn childrens right to life by actively facilitating some 100 000
abortions per year in Canada. Additionally, the author claims that under the
Canadian Criminal Code, unborn children are discriminated against unfairly because
they are not recognized as human beings. The author stated that his case should be
considered admissible even though he has not been a personal victim of these
violations because these unborn children are unable to represent themselves. The
Committee declared the case inadmissible on account of actio popularis such that
specific claimants cannot be individually identified.
The author and his daughter, Walter and Anita Obodzinsky, claim that Walter is the
victim of human rights violations protected under Article 6 + 7 regarding ill
treatment. Walter was a Canadian national that was recently investigated for
committing fraud upon entering the country by lying about his history of Nazi
sympathy including crimes against humanity. It is argued that the precarious state of
health that Walter is in makes it inhumane for the State party to be pursuing the
revocation of his Canadian citizenship since it would jeopardize his life. Those
violations were ruled admissible by the committee but they noted that neither the
application for a stay of citizenship revocation proceedings nor the revocation
procedure itself, required the authors physical presence, and therefore the
Committee considered the claims unsubstantiated.
The author, Josephine Cridge, is a Canadian citizen claiming that her rights to a fair
trial concerning Articles 14 and 26 were violated, as well as her rights to her
reputation being protected. The authors allegations stem from perceived legal
negligence following three civil suits involving the author. According to the author
,the intentional negligence was because her claims were directed against a
prominent law firm with close linkages to the political, legal, and judicial elites of
Canada, However, the committee ruled that her claims were inadmissible for nonexhaustion regarding article 17, and the rest inadmissible following the lack of
substantiation and the intent of the committee to stay clear of reviewing an
evaluation of facts and evidence.

Summary Table of Canadian Decisions by the UN Human Rights Committee

Dumont
vs.
Canada

2010-0316

Self

14.6
2.3

Tort

Compensation
for
Miscarriage of
Justice,
Efective
remedy

Yes

Yes

D.J.D.G. et
al
vs.
Canada

2010-0726

Counsel:
Lina Anani

10.1
14.1

Immigration

No

Warsame
vs.
Canada

2011-0721

Counsel:
Michel Arnold
Collet

Yes

Yes

A.A.
vs.
Canada

2011-1031

Counsel:
Mai Nguyen

13,
14.1
19.1
19.2
26
7
9.1

Immigration

No

Boisvert
vs.
Canada

2010-0319

Self

14.1,
16,
2,
26,
5

Discriminatio
n

Efective
Remedy,
Fair Hearing,
Protection of
Family,
Right to Life,
Torture / illtreatment
Equality
before the
law,
Expulsion of
aliens,
Fair hearing,
Freedom of
opinion,
Torture / illtreatment
Deportation
Equality
before the
law,
Expulsion of
aliens,
Torture / illtreatment
Equality
before the
law,
Fair hearing,

No

23.1
24.1
6.1
7
9.1
12.4
17
18
2.3
23.1
6.1
7

Immigration
Criminal

The author, Michel Dumont, is a former convict that served 34 months in prison after
being charged with rape from eyewitness evidence. After his alleged victim began to
doubt her own statements, the author was eventually acquitted but received no
compensation. The committee ruled that the State Party had demonstrated the
inefectiveness of the judicial process available to the author to seek compensation
and thus ruled the case admissible. The Committee agreed with the author that
there was a violation involving the right to compensation following a miscarriage of
justice because the author had been deprived of an efective remedy to establish his
innocence because the lack of new evidence meant there could be no new trial to
prove his innocence and thus get compensation.
The authors are a family facing deportation from Canada back to Colombia because
of their Colombian citizenry. The authors claim that they have had many of theirs
rights protected under the Covenant broken because they believe deportation back
to Colombia means death, considering their previous history as victims of violence
(including rape and torture), stemming from their personal history of complaints
about the FARC. At the time of the communication however, domestic remedies were
pending before the Supreme Court efectively making the case inadmissible.
The author is a Saudi Arabian born man that never obtained Saudi Arabian
citizenship. He is of Somali decent but has never lived there. After two criminal
convictions, the author was sentenced for deportation to Somalia under his
permanent resident status. The case was admissible because the Ministry of Public
Safety claimed the author would not be at risk despite not knowing the language,
having no connections etc. all which have been previously documented as leading to
violence. As such, article 12 was found to be violated because Canada was
considered his own country and deportation would inevitably lead to this violation.
Additionally, Articles 17, 23.1, and 2.3 would all be violated because of the realistic
impossibility of his family being able to remain connected.
Author claims that she will be at risk of arbitrary torture and detainment if deported
back to Iran for her unbeknownst crime of unlawful relations. She claims that since
the same officer rejected her PRAA and H&C claim that he was afected by bias and
she was discriminated against as a woman; however, these claims were deemed to
be unsubstantiated. The State party argues that she could not provide sufficient
evidence to prove she would be substantially at risk of article 6 and 7 violations in
Iran, as her crimes do not typically incur such punishments, and furthermore the
State party should not be held accountable.
The authors, Mireille Boisvert and her husband, are Canadian citizens claiming that
the State party has violated Articles 2,5,14,16, and 26 of the Covenant regarding her
and her husbands right to a fair trial. Mireille argues that since persons who are
mentally or physically incapable must be represented by a lawyer, their choices are
restricted. The author claims she has a clear interest in representing her husband,
and therefore her husband is a victim of discrimination since Canadian law requires
that he hires a lawyer. The Committee ruled the case inadmissible for nonexhaustion reasons, stating that the authors must seek all other judicial remedies
(including constitutional appeals).

Summary Table of Canadian Decisions by the UN Human Rights Committee

Pillai et al.
vs.
Canada

2012-0325

Counsel:
Richard
Goldman

7
6.1
9
23.1
24.1

Immigration
Family

Equality of
spouses,
Protection of
family,
Right to life,
Torture / illtreatment

Yes

Yes

K.A.L. &
A.A.M.L.
vs.
Canada

2012-0326

Counsel:
Nataliya Dzera

18,
24.1
27
6.1
7
9.1

Immigration
Family

Deportation
Right to life,
Torture / illtreatment

No

S.V.
vs.
Canada

2012-0723

Self

14
17
2.3
23.1
6.1
7
9.1

Immigration

Efective
remedy,
Fair hearing,
Protection of
family,
Right to
defense,

No

Thuraisam
y vs.
Canada

2012-1031

Counsel:
Kathleen
Hadekel

7
9
6

Immigration

Torture/ Illtreatment,
Deportation

Yes

Yes

Choudhary
et al.
vs.
Canada

2013-1028

Counsel:
Stewart
Istvanfy

2.3,
6.1,
7

Immigration

Efective
remedy,
Right to life,
Torture / illtreatment

Yes

Yes

Authors are Sri Lankan refugees seeking political asylum following their torture by
the state police due to their alleged associations with the LTTE, stemming from their
geographical origins. The authors also faced extortion and arbitrary arrest.
Admissibility was found because of discrepancies between H&C and PRAA rulings,
which did not fully take into account a DTI of Mr. Pillais PTSD. A recent UN report
had stated Tamils were much more likely to be in danger, particularly of violations to
Article 7. Further complicating matters, are the rights of the family such that two out
of the three children are Canadian citizens and violations of Article 7 to the parents
would constitute violations of Articles 23 and 24. The Committee ruled in favour of
the authors.
Authors are Pakistani nationals with two children, also of the Ismaili Shias religious
minority. The authors claim their rights to life, freedom of torture and detention
among others, would be violated if their deportation occurs following their PRAA and
H&C dismissals. The case was determined as inadmissible because of the authors
failure to exhaust domestic remedies when they failed to apply for judicial review at
the Federal Court. As well, the authors were unable to provide substantial evidence
indicating their deportation would put them personally at a great risk of these
violations. The State party was left in charge of their ruling.
The author, his wife, and his two children were facing deportation back to Romania,
where the author holds duo-citizenship jointly with the Republic of Moldova. The
author claims he is wanted by the Moldovan secret police for his anti-communist
links and fears that he will be subjected to further torture etc. if brought back to
Romania because of their extradition laws. The case was ruled inadmissible due to a
lack of substantiation proving that Romania would deport the author back to
Moldova.
The author is an ethnic Tamil and Sri Lankan citizen that was denied political asylum
in Canada following the dismissals of his PRAA and H&C applications. The author
alleges that his impending deportation would constitute violations of rights protected
by the Covenant including: protection from arbitrary detention, torture, cruel and
inhuman treatment, and death due to the potential dangers of the state police in Sri
Lanka. The Committee ruled in favour of the communications admissibility because
the only available domestic remedies would be inefective in this case. However, the
Committee determined that the authors claim of a violation under Article 6 was not
substantiated because the generalized risk of death due to arbitrary detention did
not include specific identified circumstances. The Committee did find that the
alleged violations of Articles 7 and 9 were valid and the PRAA and H&C rulings gave
insufficient weight to the authors allegations of a real risk of being tortured if
returned to Sri Lanka in light of the current circumstances. The Committee therefore
declared a violation had occurred and recommended further analysis of the authors
applications for political asylum.
The author is a Pakistani national an active Shia member. The author stated that his
immediate deportation would have violated articles 6 and 7 among others because
of the serious concerns over his familys safety in Pakistan, including their three
young Canadian children. The failure to properly identify themselves upon seeking
political asylum meant that the author and his wife were not provided refugee status.
The Committee found the claims sufficiently substantiated and the tight timeline
meant the case was found admissible. The Committee came to the conclusion that

Summary Table of Canadian Decisions by the UN Human Rights Committee

the notable persecution of religious minorities in Pakistan and the governments
inability to protect them meant that their deportation would constitute a violation
under article 6.1 and 7.