Source: https://irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/legal-policy/legal-concepts/Pages/RefDef01.aspx
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:49:24+00:00

Document:
1.3.1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 96 - meaning of "Convention refugee"
The interpretation of the Convention refugee definition is an ongoing process of which the Refugee Protection Division (RPD),Note 3 formerly the Convention Refugee Determination Division (CRDD) and the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD)Note 4 of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), are major players. Some issues have been settled by the Courts, others remain unanswered. One of the difficulties in summarizing the basic principles in this area of the law is that many of the Court decisions are fact specific and do not establish general principles of law. In the paper we have described those areas in which the case law is conflicting or unsettled.
The paper identifies those principles of law which are settled and indicates how the Courts have applied those principles to some particular situations. In reading the cases themselves, we caution keeping in mind the need to distinguish between a case that sets out a legal principle and a case that applies the law to particular facts.
Reference will be made to the decisions of the RAD, the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada which interpret the Convention refugee definition. Foreign case law and CRDD/RPD decisions are not generally included in this paper. Where applicable, reference is also made to IRB Chairperson’s Guidelines, IRB Jurisprudential Guides, the UNHCR Handbook,Note 5 and to the relevant IRB Legal Services papers.
Case law on credibility and evidence can be found in the IRB Legal Services papers “Assessment of Credibility in Claims for Refugee Protections”, dated January 31, 2004, and "Weighing Evidence", dated December 31, 2003.
References to “the Court of Appeal” are references to the Federal Court of Appeal. Similarly, references to “the Trial Division” are references to the Federal Court - Trial Division (replaced by the Federal Court).
Each chapter includes a list, in alphabetical order, of all the cases referred to in the chapter, with appropriate page references.
In terms of references to the case law, we have adopted the following practice.
Most cases are identified by their unreported citation (which includes the names of the parties, the court case number, the name of the judge(s) and the date of judgment and, if available, by their neutral citation. For example: Neri, Juan Carlos Herrera v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-9988-12), Strickland, October 23, 2013; 2013 FC 1087.
Some cases are identified by their official reported citation. For example: Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward,  2 S.C.R. 689.
Some of the older cases are also identified by their unofficial reported citation but these citations are not as useful now that cases are generally available in electronic form. For example, Ward, in addition to the official reported citation noted above, is also identified as follows: Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward,  2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85.
1.3.1. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 96 - meaning of "Convention refugee"
(ii) not having a country of nationality, is outside their country of former habitual residence and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to return to that country.
108(4) Paragraph 1(e) does not apply to a person who establishes that there are compelling reasons arising out of any previous persecution, torture, treatment or punishment for refusing to avail themselves of the protection of the country which they left, or outside of which they remained, due to such previous persecution, torture, treatment or punishment.
This paper deals with the case law relating to s.96 (sometimes referred to as the inclusion section) and s. 98 (sometimes referred to as the exclusion section). Each chapter deals with a different element of the definition of Convention refugee and there are separate chapters for the exclusion clauses. Case law on cessation and vacation applications is not included.
The Supreme Court of Canada has dealt with few refugee cases however, a case which raised a number of important issues and provided the Court with the opportunity to offer its unanimous interpretation of the definition of Convention refugee was Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward.Note 6 While the Court did not deal with every aspect of the definition (for example, it did not deal with the exclusion clausesNote 7), it did provide us with a general framework of interpretation of the major inclusion components. The Court also commented extensively on the context in which refugee determination takes place and on the nature of Canada’s international obligations in this respect.
Inability of a state to protect its citizens will not be sufficient to engage international protection obligations. There must also be a fear of persecution for a Convention ground.
The following are general principles established by cases other than Ward and by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
To be determined a Convention refugee, a claimant must establish that he or she meets all the elements of the definition. Some aspects of the definition have not received judicial interpretation. Where several interpretations are possible, in choosing the most appropriate one, the Refugee Protection Division should take into account section 3(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which lists the objectives of the Act with respect to refugees and section 3(3) which sets out how the Act is to be construed and applied.
While Article 1E deals with situations of persons not considered to be in need of refugee protection, Article 1F deals with persons considered not to be deserving of international protection.
Section 3(3)(f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states that the Act is to be construed and applied in a manner that complies with international human rights instruments to which Canada is a signatory.
Adjei v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),  2 F.C. 680 (C.A.).
Salibian v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),  3 F.C. 250 (C.A.).
Singh v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),  1 S.C.R. 177, 17 D.L.R.(4th) 422, 58 N.R. 1.
Ward: Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward,  2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85.
1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 189 U.N.T.S. 2545, entered into force on April 22, 1954 and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 606 U.N.T.S. 8791, entered into force on October 4, 1967. The paper does not deal with cases relating to section 97 of IRPA, that being the section dealing with risk to life, risk of cruel and unusual punishment or treatment, and danger of torture.
The RPD is the body in Canada which adjudicates claims in the first instance.
The RAD came into existence on December 15, 2012.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, Geneva, January 1992.
The Supreme Court of Canada has dealt with the issue of exclusion under Article 1 F in Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),  1 S.C.R. 982; (1998), 43 Imm. L.R. (2d) 117 (S.C.C.) ;R. v. Finta,  1 S.C.R. 701; Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),  2 S.C.R. 100; 2005 SCC 40; Ezokola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),  2 S.C.R. 678; and Febles v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2014 SCC 68. For a discussion of all exclusion issues see Chapters 10 and 11.
Each principle will be discussed in more detail in later chapters of the paper.
Ward, supra, footnote 6, at 709.
Ward, supra, footnote 6, at 751.
Ward, supra, footnote 6, at 731-732.
Ward, supra, footnote 6, at 722.
Ward, supra, footnote 6, at 725-726.
Ward, supra, footnote 6, at 726.
With respect to the meaning of the terms “unable”, “unwilling” and “protection”, the Supreme Court of Canada adopts an interpretation of the Convention refugee definition that is consistent with paragraphs 98, 99 and 100 of the UNHCR Handbook. See Ward, supra, footnote 6 at 718.
Ward, supra, footnote 6, at 720.
Ward, supra, footnote 6, at 721.
Ward, supra, footnote 6, at 733.
Goodwin-Gill, Guy S., The Refugee in International Law, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), p.38.
Hathaway, James C., The Law of Refugee Status, (Toronto: Butterworths, 1991), pp. 104-105.
Ward, supra, footnote 6, at 734.
Ward, supra, footnote 6, at 733-5.
Ward, supra, footnote 6, at 746.
Ward, supra, footnote 6, at 747.
Ward, supra, footnote 6, at 745.
Singh v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),  1 S.C.R. 177, 17 D.L.R. (4th) 422, 58 N.R. 1.
Singh, ibid., at 210, per Wilson J.
Salibian v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),  3 F.C. 250 (C.A.) at 258.
Adjei v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),  2 F.C. 680 (C.A.) at 683.

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