Academic journal article Refuge

Ahani V. Canada: A Persuasive Dialogue within the Courts. (Case Comment)

Academic journal article Refuge

Ahani V. Canada: A Persuasive Dialogue within the Courts. (Case Comment)

Article excerpt


This paper is a comment on Ahani v. Canada (OCA). Canadian courts are presently involved in a dialogue over the role of international law domestically. The courts' own grappling with various norms of international law, however, has helped to clarify and reinforce the status of these norms. In Baker v. Canada, the Supreme Court gave a new prominence to the "persuasive approach" of applying international law. Ahani demonstrates that while the persuasive approach has begun to be internalized into Canadian law, the courts are still at odds with how persuasive international law should be. To complicate this account, the Supreme Court's discussion in Suresh of peremptory norms of international law demonstrates that an over-emphasis on the "persuasive" approach can in fact weaken the role of international law domestically. At the same time, the dialogue within the courts is linked to a much more general dialogue. The importance of cases such as Ahani ultimately stretches beyond the domestic context.


On the night of June 18, 2002, Mansour Ahani, an Iranian Convention refugee and suspected terrorist, was deported from Canada to Tehran. This marked the end of his nine-year battle to prevent his deportation, which saw his case reach the Supreme Court of Canada on two occasions. In his first case, Mr. Ahani challenged a deportation order made by the Canadian government, on the ground that he would face a serious risk of torture were he to be returned to his native Iran. (1) He claimed that the prohibition on torture in international law is nonderogable and therefore superseded any provisions in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees that would allow for the refoulement of refugees. (2) Mr. Ahani's appeal to the Supreme Court was ultimately dismissed. The Court ruled that whereas Mr. Ahani had been given the proper procedural protections to prove his case, he had failed to establish that he faced a substantial risk of torture if deported. As he had exhausted all of his rights of review, it was now open to the Canadian government to deport Mr. Ahani.

In a last effort to prevent his removal from Canada, Mr. Ahani filed a "communication" with the United Nations Human Rights Committee (the Committee) for relief under the Optional Protocol of the International Covenant of Civil Political Rights (the Optional Protocol). (3) His claim was based on Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol. These articles, respectively, call on signatory states to recognize the competence of the Committee, and to allow for individuals to bring claims once they have exhausted all available domestic remedies. (4) The Committee made an "interim measures" request that Canada stay the deportation order until it had considered Mr. Ahani's communication. (5)

The Optional Protocol of the ICCPR has been ratified by Canada but not implemented into Canadian law. By ratifying the Optional Protocol, state parties agree to recognize the Committee. However, since the language of the Protocol and the Committee's rules of procedures are permissive, the Committee is only empowered (under the Optional Protocol and the Rules of Procedure) to express its views and make requests to state parties. In this sense, parties are not legally bound to yield to the committee's requests or findings. Given the permissive language of the Protocol, the Canadian government took the view that the interim measures request was not binding and, as a result, chose not to accede it, wishing again to deport Mr. Ahani immediately. Mr. Ahani applied to the Superior Court of Ontario for an injunction to restrain his deportation pending the Committee's consideration of his communication. The effect of such an injunction would have been to force the Canadian government to follow the Committee's request. The central question in Ahani H then was whether Canada was bound--either on the principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or of international law--by the procedures of a ratified but non-implemented international instrument, notwithstanding the fact that the relevant procedures are permissive only. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.