Borderlines Podcast #42 – Section 15 of the Charter and Canadian Immigration, with Aidan Campbell

Section 15 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination. Aidan Campbell joins to discuss the application of s. 15 of the Charter to Canadian immigration law and the implications recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Fraser v. Canada. Aidan Campbell is an Associate at Mahon & Company, a progressive firm which practices in Criminal Law, Immigration and Refugee Law, Public Interest & Constitutional Litigation, Sex Worker Rights, Prisoners’ Rights, Professional Discipline. Extradition Law and Tenants’ Rights  

Podcast Notes: 
Section 15 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that:
Section 15(1)  of the Charter  states:
  1. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability;

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 548, at paras. 19‑20) provides that to prove a prima facie violation of s. 15(1) , a claimant must demonstrate that the impugned law or state action:
  • on its face or in its impact, creates a distinction based on enumerated or analogous grounds; and
  • imposes burdens or denies a benefit in a manner that has the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating, or exacerbating disadvantage.

Adverse Impact Adverse impact discrimination occurs when a seemingly neutral law has a disproportionate impact on members of groups protected on the basis of an enumerated or analogous ground. Instead of explicitly singling out those who are in the protected groups for differential treatment, the law indirectly places them at a disadvantage. Increased awareness of adverse impact discrimination has been a “central trend in the development of discrimination law”, marking a shift away from a fault based conception of discrimination towards an effects based model which critically examines systems, structures, and their impact on disadvantaged groups. Accompanying this shift was the recognition that discrimination is “frequently a product of continuing to do things ‘the way they have always been done’”, and that governments must be “particularly vigilant about the effects of their own policies” on members of disadvantaged groups.  

Some of the leading cases on s. 15 and Canadian immigration are: Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Chiarelli, 1992 CanLII 87 (SCC), [1992] 1 SCR 711
  • s. 6 of the Charter specifically provides for differential treatment of citizens and permanent residents in this regard.
  • While permanent residents are given various mobility rights in s. 6(2), only citizens are accorded the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada in s. 6(1).  There is therefore no discrimination contrary to s. 15 in a deportation scheme that applies to permanent residents, but not to citizens.
Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, 1989 CanLII 2 (SCC)
  • Discriminatory for the LSBC to restrict practice of law to Canadians
Austria v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FCA 191 (CanLII), [2015] 3 FCR 346
  • Discrimination on national origin because of visa post backlogs
  • Sidestepped the issue and said lack of evidence.
  • Appellants argued that this was unfair because the government had the evidence and did not provide it, but court unmoved.
Y.Z. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 892 
  • The first aspect of the test is satisfied by the very provisions of paragraph 110(2)(d.1) itself inasmuch as it creates two classes of refugee claimants based on national origin: those foreign nationals from a DCO and those who are not from a DCO.
  • This is akin to saying that all refugee claimants in Canada are equal, but some – i.e. those from non-DCO countries – are more equal than others. As proficient as the RPD may be, there is no question that access to the RAD is a substantial benefit which is being denied to claimants from DCOs.
Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care v. Canada (Attorney general), 2014 FC 651
  •  For these reasons, I have concluded that the 2012 IFHP violates section 15 of the Charter inasmuch as it provides a lesser level of health insurance coverage to refugee claimants from DCO countries in comparison to that provided to refugee claimants from non-DCO countries. This distinction is based upon the national origin of the refugee claimants and does not form part of an ameliorative program. It is, moreover, based upon stereotyping, and serves to perpetuate the disadvantage suffered by members of an admittedly vulnerable, poor and disadvantaged group.
Guzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1134 (CanLII), [2007] 3 FCR 411
  • Social assistance not an enumerated ground.

Borderlines Podcast #41 – Judges Virtue Signalling Inside and Outside of Court, with Andrew Hayes

In R v. Kattenburg Justice Stratas of the Federal Court of Appeal cautioned judges against giving “virtue signalling and populism a go.” This prompted a largely philosophical discussion about the role of judges, a Toronto judge who wore a Make America Great Again hat in court, a Quebec judge who proclaimed herself a feminist before making statements about Quebec’s ban on religious attire, Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticizing President Trump, and defining what virtue signaling even is.  

Andrew Hayes is a US immigration lawyer who practices out of Vancouver.

Episode 40 – Family Law Concepts That Immigrants and their Sponsors Should Understand, with Ari Wormelli

In this episode we provide an overview of family law issues that immigrants and their Canadian sponsors should be aware of, inlcuding the recognition of foreign marriages, how divorce works, threatening to have an ex-spouse deported and the difference between common-law and marriage and getting a marriage anulled. Ari Wormelli practices family law with YLAW Group.

Episode 27 – Civil Forfeiture in Canada, with Bibhas Vaze

Civil forfeiture is a process in which the government seizes assets from persons suspected of involvement with crime without necessarily charging the owners with wrongdoing. Did you know that in British Columbia the government can seize and forfeit your car if you speed? Or that police can “seize first ask later” for property that is less than $75,000? This was a fascinating look at an area of law that receives little scrutiny, especially in how it can relate to immigration.

Bibhas Vaze is a criminal defence lawyer in Vancouver.


4:45 – An overview of New Can and how it relates to civil forfeiture.

5:30 – What is civil forfeiture?

13:15 – Who has the onus of proving there is a tracing of property to unlawful activity?

16:50 – Can the government seize property that is partially the proceed of crime or that was used to commit unlawful activity?

17:10 – What is unlawful activity in the civil forfeiture context?

19:20 – What is the size of British Columbia’s Civil Forfeiture Office? How much property has it seized since its inception?

20:30 – Do all civil forfeiture cases have to go to trial?

25:10 – When is the property actually seized?

29:00 – What level of connection between the unlawful activity and the property is necessary in order for property to be seized?

32:20 – What is constitutional creep, and how does it play into civil forfeiture?

37:50 – If someone is ordered by a criminal court to pay a fine or restitution, can they they be subject to civil forfeiture, essentially paying the fine twice?

46:00 – How far back can the government go? Is there a limitation period from when the unlawful activity was committed to when the property can be seized?

1:01 – An overview of the recent United States Supreme Court decision to strike down many aspects of their civil forfeiture regime. Could it happen in Canada?