Amnesty International Canada's Legal Work Database

Mr. Hinzman was an American soldier. He applied for conscientious objector status on the basis of his moral and religious opposition to the United States’ wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. His application was refused by the US military, and before being deployed in Iraq, he, his wife, and his son fled to Canada. When they arrived in Canada, they made a refugee claim in February 2004 on the basis that Mr. Hinzman would be court martialed and put at risk of torture and persecution if he returned to the United States. Amnesty International applied to intervene in Mr. Hinzman’s case before the Federal Court of Appeal.

On 6 September 1995, an Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) sniper shot and fatally wounded an unarmed Indigenous man, Dudley George, after police moved to forcibly end a land rights protest at Ipperwash Provincial Park. A landmark provincial inquiry was established on 12 November 2003 to look into the factors leading to the confrontation between protestors and police and ways to prevent excessive use of force in the future.

This case concerns the extradition from Canada to Thailand of Michael Karas who was suspected by Thai authorities of committing a murder in Thailand. Despite the danger that Mr. Karas could face the death penalty if returned to Thailand, Canada's Minster of Justice ordered that he be surrendered to Thailand to be prosecuted. The Minister did not seek assurances from Thailand that if Mr. Karas were convicted of murder in Thailand, the death penalty would not be imposed. Amnesty International sought leave to intervene before the Supreme Court of Canada in Mr. Karas’ case. We proposed to argue that Canada is constitutionally required to seek assurances in all but exceptional cases that the death penalty will not be imposed or sought.

Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, was tabled in the House of Commons in February 2014. The Bill proposed new powers to revoke Canadian citizenship when individuals are convicted of specified crimes related to terrorism, treason, and other similar offences. Bill C-24 bought into and promoted false and xenophobic narratives about “true” Canadians and others, which equate foreignness with terrorism. Bill C-24 would consequently have a detrimental impact on the ability of many Canadians of foreign origin or certain racial/ethnic/religious groups of Canadians to enjoy their human rights on the basis of equality. Amnesty International’s legal brief provided a detailed analysis of Bill C-24 from the perspective of Canada’s international human rights obligations.

On 14 October 2014, the federal government announced that it would approve the construction of the Site C hydroelectric dam in the Peace River Valley. This was despite the findings of an independent environmental assessment panel conducted on behalf of the federal and provincial governments that the dam would “severely undermine” the ability of Indigenous peoples to carry out crucial cultural and economic practices. The proposed $8 billion plus Site C dam would flood more than 80km2 of the valley. Without providing any explanation, the federal government determined that the harms the dam would cause to the environment and Indigenous peoples were justified. Doig River First Nation, Prophet River First Nation, West Moberly First Nations, and McLeod Lake Indian Band brought an application for judicial review of the federal government’s decision to approve the Site C project before the Federal Court of Canada. They also filed an application at the British Columbia Supreme Court. In our intervention, Amnesty International argued that under international law, a rigorous standard of protection is required for Indigenous peoples’ rights, including rights to protect their cultural heritage and to maintain the cultural and economic integrity of their communities.

Canada underwent its second Universal Periodic Review (UPR) before the UN Human Rights Council in April-May 2013. Amnesty International provided submissions highlighting our concerns about Canada’s ongoing flawed implementation of human rights obligations and on its engagement with UPR principles, such as consultation with civil society. In our submissions, Amnesty International noted Canada’s reluctance to ratify international human rights conventions or to adopt binding international standards on corporate accountability. We also commented on the human rights situation facing Indigenous peoples; the rising inequality of women; troubling trends regarding sexual violence against women, arbitrary detention, and refoulement of migrants; and concerns regarding torture and excessive use of policing during protests.

Canada underwent its 4th and 5th review of its compliance with the Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in March 2006. Amnesty International provided written submission to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights during the review. In our submissions, Amnesty International made recommendations in six areas: indigenous peoples; migrants; trade and investment; development assistance; implementation; and enforcement.

Canada underwent its sixth and seventh review of its compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in October 2008. Amnesty International provided written submission to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women during the review. We also provided follow-up submissions to the Committee’s Concluding Observations. Amnesty International’s submissions recognized that Canada has, in many respects, a commendable record when it comes to advancing women’s equality, both in Canada and at a global level. However, Amnesty International’s submissions also highlighted that the reality for far too many women across Canada is one of violence, discrimination, and other human rights violations. This is particularly true for women from marginalized communities.

Canada underwent its sixth review of its compliance to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in May 2012. Amnesty International’s submissions primarily emphasized concerns about a variety of ways in which Canadian action or inaction risks complicity in torture or other ill-treatment, through such means as inadequate efforts to protect Indigenous women from violence, prisoner transfers, deportations, national security relationships with foreign governments, and failure to ensure justice and accountability for torture. In addition, the brief outlines concern about the infliction of torture or other ill-treatment within Canada, including ongoing use of conducted energy devices and allegations of excessive force by police during various protests such as the Indigenous land protest at Tyendinaga or the demonstrations at the time of the June 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto.