The 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees in article 31 says that a refugee is to be excused for entering a State illegally. Canada's action undermines this part of the Convention. Under UN rules, Canada should have offered to consider Mitra's husband for refugee status on account of the fact that Canada had already offered his wife Mitra a form of asylum. Interdiction measures were intended to prevent abuse. The Canadian public and Canada's parliament never approved the use of interdiction measures to prevent spouses from re-uniting or to prevent a refugee from arriving in Canada in accordance with international law.
Rights attach to individuals.
Mitra qualified for a Canadian program designed to protect an individual from the risk of torture consequential to deportation. The action of a third party, her husband, is not a legal basis for robbing Mitra of her right to this protection. It punishes her for what he did. That is not legitimate. To put a sensitive torture victim in a situation of uncertainty, to threaten deportation and to maintain separation from close family members is likely cruel treatment or inhumane treatment.