Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:52:10.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Canadian Cases in Public International Law in 2018

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2019

GIB VAN ERT
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Cases / Jurisprudence
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 56 , October 2019 , pp. 541 - 570
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Gib van Ert, “Jurisprudence canadienne en matière de droit international public en 2017” (2017) 55 ACDI 571 aux pp 571–74 [van Ert 2017].

2 LRC 1985, c E-19, art 10 [LLEI].

3 Turp c Canada (Affaires étrangères), 2018 CF 12 aux paras 70, 75 [Turp CF].

4 Ibid au para 41.

5 Ibid au para 76.

6 Rés AG 67/234B, 2 avril 2013 (entrée en vigueur: 24 décembre 2014).

7 Turp CF, supra note 3 au para 112.

8 Ibid au para 80.

9 Voir par ex l’article 27 de la Convention de Vienne sur le droit des traités, 23 mai 1969, 1155 RTNU 331, RT Can 1980 no 37 (entrée en vigueur: 27 janvier 1980) [VCLT]: “Une partie ne peut invoquer les dispositions de son droit interne comme justifiant la non-exécution d’un traité” ou encore l’article 3 du Projet d’articles sur la responsabilité de l’état pour fait internationalement illicite, Doc NU A/56/10 (2001): “La qualification du fait de l’État comme internationalement illicite relève du droit international. Une telle qualification n’est pas affectée par la qualification du même fait comme licite par le droit interne.”

10 Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 25 October 1980, Can TS 1983 No 35 (entered into force 1 December 1983) [Hague Convention].

11 Office of the Children’s Lawyer v Balev, 2018 SCC 16 at para 22 [Balev].

12 Ibid at paras 24–29.

13 RSO 1990, c C.12, s 46(2) [Children’s Law Reform Act].

14 Balev, supra note 11 at para 31.

15 VCLT, supra note 9, art 31(1); Balev, supra note 11 at para 32.

16 Balev, supra note 11 at para 33.

17 Ibid at para 49.

18 Ibid at para 34, citing the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, 1577 UNTS 3, Can TS 1992 No 3 (entered into force 2 September 1990).

19 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter].

20 Balev, supra note 11 at para 35, citing Febles v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 SCC 68; VCLT, supra note 9, arts 27, 31.

21 Balev, supra note 11 at para 35.

22 Ibid at para 40.

23 Ibid at para 41.

24 Ibid at paras 43–47.

25 Ibid at para 50.

26 Ibid at para 57.

27 E.g., ibid at paras 66–67.

28 Ibid at para 73.

29 Ibid at para 78.

30 Ibid at para 79.

31 Ibid at para 82, citing R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 SCR 631.

32 Balev, supra note 11 at para 84.

33 Ibid at para 87.

34 Ibid at para 89.

35 Ibid at para 111.

36 Ibid at para 139.

37 Ibid at para 159.

38 17 December 1992, Can TS 1994 No 2 (entered into force 1 January 1994) [NAFTA].

39 PCA Case no 2009-04, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 17 March 2015.

40 Canada (Attorney General) v Clayton, 2018 FC 436 at para 85 [Clayton].

41 United Mexican States v Metalclad Corporation, 2001 BCSC 664.

42 Clayton, supra note 40 at paras 86–88.

43 Ibid at paras 89–90.

44 Commercial Arbitration Act, RSC 1985, c 17 (2nd Supp).

45 2011 ONCA 622.

46 Clayton, supra note 40 at para 77.

47 Ibid at para 104.

48 Ibid at para 134.

49 Ibid at para 139.

50 Ibid at para 146.

51 Ibid at para 152.

52 Ibid at paras 162–63.

53 Ibid at para 165.

54 Ibid at para 199.

55 PCA Case No 2012-17, Award, 24 March 2016.

56 RSO 1990, c C.43.

57 RSO 1990, c F.31.

58 Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at para 60.

59 Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v University of Calgary, 2016 SCC 53.

60 Convention on the Rights of the Child, supra note 18.

61 Ontario (Children’s Lawyer) v Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2018 ONCA 559 at para 55 [Ontario (Children’s Lawyer)].

62 Ibid at para 59, citing Bhajan v Bhajan, 2010 ONCA 714 at paras 12–14.

63 Ontario (Children’s Lawyer), supra note 61 at para 60.

64 Ibid at para 65; see also paras 64, 66.

65 Ibid at paras 73–81.

66 Ibid at para 88.

67 Ibid at para 99.

68 Ibid at para 127.

69 Ibid at para 125.

70 [1999] 2 SCR 817 [Baker]. It is unsafe, particularly in the human rights context, to conclude that a treaty is unimplemented in domestic law merely from the absence of express implementing legislation. As Canada has explained to the UN human rights system: “It is not the practice in Canada for one single piece of legislation to be enacted incorporating an entire convention on human rights into domestic law, primarily due to the division of jurisdiction between federal and provincial/territorial levels. Rather, many different federal, provincial and territorial laws and policies together serve to implement Canada’s international human rights obligations.” Canada, Core Document Forming Part of the Reports of States Parties, Doc HRI/CORE/CAN/2013 (28 January 2013). A much superior account of the Children’s Convention’s implementation status in Canada can be found in Martinson J’s reasons in BJG v DLG, 2010 YKSC 44 at paras 34–36.

71 B010 v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 58 at para 48; see also paras 47, 49.

72 Van Ert 2017, supra note 1 aux pp 571–74.

73 Ce jugement n’est peut-être pas le dernier mot dans l’affaire, comme le suggère la décision notée ci-haut. Turp CF, supra note 3.

74 Convention de Genève pour l’amélioration du sort des blessés et des malades dans les forces armées en campagne, 12 août 1949, 75 RTNU 31, RT Can 1965 no 20 ; Convention de Genève pour l’amélioration du sort des blessés, des malades et des naufragés des forces armées sur mer, 12 août 1949, 75 RTNU 85, RT Can 1965 no 20; Convention de Genève relative au traitement des prisonniers de guerre, 12 août 1949, 75 RTNU 135, RT Can 1965 no 20 ; Convention de Genève relative à la protection des personnes civiles en temps de guerre, 12 août 1949, 75 RTNU 287, RT Can 1965 no 20 [Conventions de Genève].

75 LLEI, supra note 2.

76 Turp c Canada (Affaires étrangères), 2018 CAF 133 au para 60 [Turp CAF].

77 Ibid aux paras 60–61.

78 Ibid au para 69.

79 Ibid au para 82.

80 R v The North (1906), 37 SCR 385; Jose Pereira E Hijos, SA c Canada (Procureur général), [1997] 2 CF 84; Lord Advocate’s Reference (No 1 of 2000), [2001] ScotHC 15.

81 Turp CAF, supra note 76 au para 88.

82 Notamment Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v PT Garuda Indonesia (n° 9), [2013] FCA 323 (Federal Court of Australia).

83 Turp CAF, supra note 76 aux paras 78–81.

84 Ibid au para 28.

85 Baker, supra note 70 au para 70: “Les valeurs exprimées dans le droit international des droits de la personne peuvent, toutefois, être prises en compte dans l’approche contextuelle de l’interprétation des lois et en matière de contrôle judiciaire.” Voir également Budlakoti c Canada (MCI), 2015 CAF 139 au para 54: “ L’appelant peut également invoquer la Convention comme élément dont le ministre devrait tenir compte: Baker”; Németh c Canada, 2010 CSC 56 au para 105.

86 Nation Gitxaala c Canada, 2015 CAF 73 au para 18.

87 International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 2, Sched 5; Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 10 June 1958, Can TS 1986 No 43 (entered into force 7 June 1959) [New York Convention]; United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985, with Amendments as Adopted in 2008 (Vienna: United Nations, 2008) [UNCITRAL Model Law].

88 Popack v Lipszyc, 2015 ONSC 3460.

89 Popack v Lipszyc, 2016 ONCA 135.

90 Popack v Lipszyc, 2018 ONCA 635 at paras 31–34 [Popack 2018].

91 Ibid at para 43, quoting Gary B Born, International Commercial Arbitration, 2nd ed, vol 3 (Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2014) at 3611.

92 Popack 2018, supra note 90 at paras 45–46, quoting Born, supra note 91 at 3617.

93 Popack 2018, supra note 90 at paras 47–48.

94 Yugraneft Corp v Rexx Management Corp, 2010 SCC 19 at paras 54–55.

95 Popack 2018, supra note 90 at para 52.

96 Ibid at para 66.

97 In the Matter of an Application by [Redacted] for Warrants pursuant to Sections 16 and 21 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, RSC 1985, c C-23 and In the Matter of [Redacted], 2018 FC 738 at para 74 [CSIS Warrants FC].

98 Ibid at paras 80–85.

99 Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, RSC 1985, c C-23 [CSIS Act].

100 CSIS Warrants FC, supra note 97 at para 25.

101 Ibid at para 114.

102 Ibid at para 119.

103 Ibid at para 122.

104 Ibid at paras 133–34; R v Hape, 2007 SCC 26.

105 CSIS Warrants FC, supra note 97 at para 134.

106 Ibid at para 135.

107 Ibid at para 136.

108 Ibid at para 142.

109 Ibid at para 143.

110 Ibid at para 147.

111 Ibid at paras 175–78 [emphasis added].

112 In the Matter of an Application by [Redacted] for Warrants pursuant to Sections 16 and 21 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, RSC 1985, c C-23 and In the Matter of [Redacted], 2018 FCA 207 at para 29.

113 Ibid at para 35.

114 Ibid at para 5.

115 Corrections and Conditional Release Act, SC 1992, c 20.

116 Charter, supra note 19, ss 7, 15.

117 British Columbia Civil Liberties Association v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 BCSC 62 at paras 57 (quoting from UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/70/175 (17 December 2015)), 137 [BCCLA].

118 BCCLA, supra note 117 at para 137.

119 Ibid at para 154.

120 Ibid at para 304.

121 There is an unremarkable exception at para 560 of the court’s reasons: “It is an important fact that the Mandela Rules prohibit solitary confinement for a period in excess of 15 consecutive days. As the Supreme Court recognized in Suresh ... ‘the principles of fundamental justice expressed in s. 7 of the Charter and the limits on rights that may be justified under s. 1 of the Charter cannot be considered in isolation from the international norms which they reflect’.”

122 BCCLA, supra note 117 at paras 50–58.

123 Ibid at para 50.

124 Hague Convention, supra note 10.

125 Children’s Law Reform Act, supra note 13, ss 22–23.

126 Ojeikere v Ojeikere, 2018 ONCA 372 at para 34 [Ojeikere], citing the Hague Convention, supra note 10; Convention on the Rights of the Child, supra note 18.

127 Ojeikere, supra note 126 at para 59.

128 Ibid at para 60.

129 Ibid at para 77.

130 Ibid at para 113.

131 26 juin 1945, RT Can 1945 no 7 (entrée en vigueur: 24 octobre 1945).

132 13 février 1946, 1 RTNU 15 et 90 RTNU 327, RT Can 1948 no 2 (entrée en vigueur: 17 septembre 1946).

133 LC 1991, c 41, art 5(1).

134 CRC, c 1317, art 3.

135 Bouchard c IKEA Canada, 2018 QCCS 2690 au para 23.

136 Ibid au para 29.