Source: https://www.cba.org/Publications-Resources/Practice-Tools/Child-Rights-Toolkit/legalAreas/Immigration-and-Refugee-Law
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:27:34+00:00

Document:
The most fundamental principle of immigration law is that non-citizens do not have an unqualified right to enter or remain in Canada. However, Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) requires that the Act be construed and applied in a manner consistent with the Charter. It must also comply with international human rights instruments to which Canada is a signatory, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
Under CRC Article 3, best interests of the child is a primary consideration in all actions concerning children, including the actions of public authorities, administrative authorities and courts of law. Although there are several areas where IRPA mandates a consideration of a child’s best interests and the Supreme Court of Canada has made clear that close attention must be given to a child’s interests and needs in certain immigration decisions, there are no overriding best interests considerations in immigration and refugee law.
For example, the best interests of the child principle does not apply to family reunification for refugee children in Canada whose parents are in other countries. Canada also lacks a clear policy framework consistent with the best interests of unaccompanied minors seeking asylum. Further, parents may sponsor their dependent children but children may not bring their parents to Canada, and children who remain in their country of origin are not permitted to join their parents in Canada if their parents did not name them as dependents in their applications for permanent residence. Children must wait for lengthy periods to reunite with resident parents and are often denied the ability to visit with a parent who resides in Canada, contrary to specific provisions in the CRC relating to the non-separation of children from their parents (unless it is necessary for their best interests), and contrary to the requirement that applications for the purpose of family reunification be dealt with in a positive, humane and expeditious manner (Articles 9 and 10).
The Committee on the Rights of the Child has expressed specific and significant concern that Canada has not appropriately applied the best interests of the child principle in asylum-seeking, refugee and/or immigration detention situations and has urged Canada to bring its immigration and asylum laws into full conformity with the CRC and other international standards.
Immigration is recognized as a concurrent power under the Canadian Constitution which means jurisdiction is shared between the federal government and the provinces. However, the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over the admission and naturalization of foreign nationals, which enables it to determine the number of immigrants admitted to Canada and the criteria for selection as set out in IRPA and its regulations, although it will collaborate with the provinces to establish immigration goals and policies.
The provinces also exercise key powers over immigration policy in the provision of social services and education, consistent with the division of powers under the Constitution. As such, the provinces play an important role in immigration settlement services, such as housing, job training, and language education. The federal government also participates in this field through programs and services funded by Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
s. 3 of IRPA sets out the objectives of the Act which include the reunification of families in Canada (s. 3(1)(d)).
Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),  S.C.J. No. 39,  2 S.C.R. 817 (S.C.C.) Must an immigration officer give serious consideration to the child’s best interests in the exercise of discretionary powers that may affect them; in this case in the context of an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds? Yes. The Court considered the CRC, as well as the importance of children's rights and the best interests of children in other international instruments ratified by Canada, highlighting that the values in international human rights law may inform the contextual approach to statutory interpretation and judicial review. Where the interests of children are minimized, in a manner inconsistent with Canada’s humanitarian and compassionate traditions, as well as the guidelines issued by the immigration Minister, the decision will be held to be unreasonable. The Court required the immigration officer to take into account the children’s best interests “as an important factor, give them substantial weight, and be alert, alive and sensitive to them”.
Kanthasamy v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),  S.C.J. No. 61, 2015 SCC 61 is significant in interpreting and strengthening the ‘best interests of the child’ principle and determining that the concept of ‘unusual or undeserved hardship’ is presumptively inapplicable to the assessment of the hardship invoked by a child to support his or her application for humanitarian and compassionate relief. The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for reconsideration as the immigration officer’s decision was unreasonable, noting the need to consider the best interests of a child who is ‘directly affected’ as a ‘singularly significant focus and perspective’. International human rights instruments to which Canada is a signatory, including the CRC, stress the centrality of the best interests of a child. This includes deciding the kind of environment in which a particular child has the best opportunity for receiving needed care and attention, having regard to the ‘multitude of factors’ that may impact on a child’s best interests and being responsive to each child’s particular age, capacity, needs and maturity.
M.M. v. United States of America,  S.C.J. No. 62, 2015 SCC 62 did not strictly arise in the immigration context, but is significant for how international instruments touching on the rights of children inform the role the best interests of the child should play in the Minister of Justice’s decision to surrender a mother for extradition and the impact this would have on her three minor children. The Court considers the best interests of the child in the extradition context as compared to an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds in the immigration context. The majority cited the CRC and other instruments which call for being attentive to children's interests and rights when making decisions that affect their future and says such instruments weigh in favour of requiring the Minister to give careful consideration to the best interests of a child who may or will be impacted by an individual's extradition. However, the Court also indicates that the criminal law context of extradition differentiates the case from humanitarian and compassionate discretion in the immigration context, and ultimately determines that the consequences of the mother having to face criminal charges abroad cannot in themselves be seen to be unjust or oppressive. The minority decision viewed the Minister's inadequate consideration of the children's best interests and his conclusions with respect to the availability of a Criminal Code defence rendered his decision to order the mother's surrender unreasonable. The Minister's uncertainty as to the children's best interests ought to have led him to err on the side of the children's right to be with a loving parent, not on the side of surrendering the mother to face a criminal process in a different country where a key defence was unavailable.
Hawthorne v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),  F.C.J. No. 1687,  2 F.C. 555, 2002 FCA 475 (C.A.) determined that the requirement that the best interests of the child be considered may be satisfied, depending on the circumstances of each case, by considering the degree of hardship to which the removal of a parent exposes the child. The concept of ‘undeserved hardship’ is ill-suited when assessing the hardship on innocent children. Children will rarely, if ever, be deserving of any hardship. Ultimately, the majority determined that the immigration officer had not been "alert, alive and sensitive" to the child's best interests and in a concurring opinion, confirmed earlier case law which stated that those interests must be “well identified and defined”.
A.M.R.I. v K.E.R., 106 O.R. (3d) 1, 2011 ONCA 417 (C.A.) considered the interplay between Canada’s obligations under various international instruments, including the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The Court considered the CRC and determined that the weight to be given to the child's best interests in the CRC strongly supported the conclusion that a Hague application judge must treat the child's status as a refugee as giving rise to a rebuttable presumption of risk of persecution if forced to return to her country of origin. The Court also referenced Article 12 of the CRC in support of its conclusion that in the context of a child refugee, the views of the child gain greater importance. Given the interests at stake, the Court specifically found that where the proposed return engages the child’s s. 7 Charter rights, meaningful procedural protections must be afforded to the child, including legal representation. The fact that a child is not a party to the application does not detract from her right to be heard.
Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care v. Canada (Attorney General),  F.C.J. No. 679, 2014 F.C. 651 held the Orders in Council that significantly reduced the level of health care coverage available to refugee claimants under the Interim Federal Health Program were inconsistent with ss. 12 and 15 of the Charter and that the changes to the Program were not justifiable under s. 1, as the profoundly deleterious effects greatly outweighed the salutary objectives of the changes. The Court found that while the negative impact of the changes was by no means felt exclusively by the children of those seeking the protection of Canada, the cruelty of the changes to the IFHP were especially evident insofar as they affected children and noted that although children sometimes have to live with the procedural consequences of their parents’ choices, this should not expose them to “unnecessary pain and suffering potentially putting their very lives at risk, because of choices made by their parents”. The Court noted Canadian domestic law contemplates the exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction where necessary to ensure that the interests of children are protected.
Martinez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),  F.C.J. No. 1695, 2003 FC 1341 (T.D.) involved an application for a stay of a removal order pending determination of a father’s application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The Court found that it was contrary to the CRC to separate the Applicant and his children before a decision was made on the humanitarian and compassionate application because it is only during the assessment of that application that the best interests of the children could be fully addressed and treated as a primary consideration as required under Article 3 of the CRC. Stated another way, the existence of the undecided H&C application raised a serious issue necessitating a stay since it was through the assessment of the children’s best interests that Canada’s obligations under the CRC were fulfilled.
Hillary v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),  F.C.J. No. 184, 2011 FCA 51 (C.A) Is a designated representative required? The Court held IRPA s. 167(2) recognizes that, if their interests are to be adequately protected in a proceeding before the Board, minors, and those unable to appreciate the nature of the proceedings, require the assistance of a designated representative who is sensitive to the particular needs of the individual concerned and alert to their best interests. A failure to comply with the express and implied procedural duties imposed by the Act may constitute a breach of a principle of natural justice. Without representation, an individual may not able to participate effectively in the decision-making process, especially when facing a more powerful adversary, such as a government department.
Duale v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration),  F.C.J. No. 178, 2004 FC 150 (F.C.) Does a minor require both counsel and a designated representative? Although he was represented by counsel at the hearing, the young person went through each stage of the proceeding, except for the actual hearing, without the assistance of a designated representative. This was contrary to the intent and scheme of IRPA, the Rules, the "Guidelines concerning Child Refugee Claimants: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues", and the Commentary to the Rules published by the Immigration and Refugee Board. The need for the designation of a representative applies to the entirety of the proceedings in respect of a refugee claim and not just to the actual hearing of the claim. Thus, the duty upon counsel to notify the RPD that a claimant in the ‘proceedings’ is a minor applies to the status of the claimant at conferences, applications, interviews and the like.
The Interim Federal Health Program provides for different levels of medical coverage for various categories of refugees/claimants, including children, and other risk-based claimants within the immigration/refugee system.
James C. Hathaway & Michelle Foster, The Law of Refugee Status, 2nd edition, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014) online.
Michael Battista. & Kelly D Jordan Canadian Family and Immigration Law: Intersections Developments and Conflicts, (Toronto: Carswell, 2015)(Carswell).
Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61 (Factum of the Intervener Justice for Children and Youth) (Factum of the Intervener, Justice for Children and Youth) online.
ZH (Tanzania) (FC) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department,  UKSC 4 (online).
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Designated Representative’s Guide, (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, January 2012) online.
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Chairperson’s Guidelines, (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 24 August 2015) at ch 3, 8 online.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Inland Processing Manual 2: Processing Applications to Sponsor Members of the Family Class, (28 Feb 2011) online.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada , Inland Processing Manual 5: Humanitarian and Compassionate Applications for Permanent Residence, (02 March 2016) online.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Enforcement Manual 20: Detention, (22 December 2015) at 16 online.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Overseas Processing Manual 3: Adoption, (09 November 2015) online.
Ontario Education Act, RSO 1990, c E2, ss 49, 49.1 (online).
Ontario, Ministry of Education, Policy/Program Memorandum No. 136: Clarification Of Section 49.1 Of The Education Act: Education Of Persons Unlawfully In Canada, (Ontario: Ministry of Education, 3 December 2004) (online).
Cecilia Alejo, “Going to school – jfcy” (30 July 2013), online: YouTube.
Justice for Children and Youth, “Right to Attend” (June 2012) online.
Jon G Allen, Coping with Trauma, Second Edition: Hope Through Understanding (American Psychiatric Association, 2004).
Judith L Herman, Trauma and Recovery (Basic Books, 1997).
Laura Simich & Lisa Andermann eds, Refuge and Resilience: Promoting Resilience and Mental Health among Resettled Refugees and Forced Migrants, (Springer Netherlands, 2014).
Lisa Andermann L. & Hung-Tat (Ted) Lo, “Cultural Competence in Psychiatric Assessment” in Davud Goldbloom, ed, Psychiatric Clinical Skills (Toronto: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 2010).
Cultural Consultation Service, Guidelines for Cultural Assessment and Cultural Formulation(2016) online.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 UKSC