Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Aut Deportare Aut Judicare: Current Topics in International Humanitarian Law in Canada

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Applying International Humanitarian Law in Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Bodies

  • 867 Accesses

Abstract

The Canadian experience with international humanitarian law is dominated by cases involving foreign nationals accused of committing war crimes abroad. Canada has developed a system whereby these individuals can be pursued either through criminal prosecutions, or through immigration proceedings modeled after the Exclusion Clause in Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention. In practice, the immigration remedies are far more frequently pursued. In the context of a debate that is relevant in many countries, this chapter examines the comparative characteristics of the two types of procedures and the merits of relying, as Canada does, almost exclusively on the immigration option. The chapter also reviews other current topics in international humanitarian law in Canada, for instance the domestic civil liability of a Canadian corporation for complicity in war crimes committed in other countries, as well as the role that norms of international humanitarian law play in the extraterritorial application of Canadian constitutional law. The author concludes by calling upon international tribunals adjudicating war crimes and crimes against humanity to consider as a useful resource the now extensive body of cases emanating from courts in Canada and other countries that have decided similar issues in the context of refugee and immigration proceedings.

James Yap, B.Sc. (McGill), J.D. (York), LL.M. (Yale). The author is indebted to Matt Eisenbrandt, Marjan Firouzgar, Elise Groulx, Sue Guan, Tasha Manoranjan, William J. Moon, Stavroula Papadopoulos, Allison Rhoades, Craig Scott, François Tanguay-Renaud, and the editors for their invaluable guidance and support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Hogg 2007, pp. 5-1–5-47.

  2. 2.

    Ibid at pp. 7-1–7-57.

  3. 3.

    Ibid at pp. 2–11.

  4. 4.

    Ibid at pp. 2–8.

  5. 5.

    Often, Canadian military personnel are simply deployed overseas in circumstances where international humanitarian law, or the rules concerning war crimes which are the most likely context in which individual military personnel might find themselves in court, do not apply. Perhaps the most notorious example is the case of Shidane Arone, a Somali teenage civilian who was brutally tortured and murdered by Canadian military personnel in 1993. The military operation in question was a UN-led peacekeeping mission and not an international armed conflict (see e.g. Graditzky 1998). However, the direct perpetrators and various other personnel were charged with conventional offenses ranging from second-degree murder, to torture, to negligent performance of a military duty. See R. v. Brown, Court Martial Appeal Court Case No. CMAC-372, 6 January 1995; R. v. Brocklebank (1995), 106 (3d) C.C.C. 234 (Court Martial Appeal Court); R. v. Boland, Court Martial Appeal Court Case No. CMAC-374, 16 May 1995; R. v. Seward, Court Martial Appeal Court Case No. CMAC-376, 27 May 1995. Prosecution for conventional offenses was also used in a more recent case involving a Canadian infantry officer alleged to have shot and killed a fatally-wounded insurgent in Afghanistan in 2008. He was charged with second degree murder, but the military jury found him not guilty on this charge, and convicted him instead on the lesser charge of disgraceful conduct. See R. v. Semrau, 2010 CM 4010.

  6. 6.

    Constitution Act, 1867, s. 91(27).

  7. 7.

    (1946) 10 George VI, c. 73.

  8. 8.

    R.S.C. 1985, c. G-3.

  9. 9.

    Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 12 August 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 31 [First Geneva Convention]; Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 12 August 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 85 [Second Geneva Convention]; Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 135 [Third Geneva Convention]; Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 287 [Fourth Geneva Convention].

  10. 10.

    Ibid., s. 3(1).

  11. 11.

    The principle, well recognized in both international and domestic legal systems, that a law cannot criminalize prior conduct. See e.g. Cassese 2008, pp. 37–38. In Canada, see Constitution Act, 1982, s. 11(g).

  12. 12.

    Deschênes 1986, pp. 245–249.

  13. 13.

    Abella and Troper 1982.

  14. 14.

    Abella and Troper 1982; Purves 1998, p. 3.

  15. 15.

    Deschênes 1986, pp. 245–249.

  16. 16.

    Deschênes 1986, pp. 247–249.

  17. 17.

    Deschênes 1986, pp. 67–68.

  18. 18.

    Deschênes 1986.

  19. 19.

    Ibid., at p. 249. Of a master list of 774 suspects drawn to its attention, the Commission found prima facie evidence of war crimes warranting official action in just 20 cases, while recommending the outright closure of another 606—341 of these for the reason that the suspects in question were not and never had been in Canada. Ibid., at pp. 262–270. Similarly, it found no evidence that Dr. Mengele had ever entered or attempted to enter Canada. Ibid at pp. 67–82.

  20. 20.

    Ibid., at pp. 262–270.

  21. 21.

    Ibid., at pp. 67–82.

  22. 22.

    Ibid., at pp. 111–126.

  23. 23.

    Ibid., at 157–158.

  24. 24.

    R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701.

  25. 25.

    17 July 1998 2187 U.N.T.S. 90.

  26. 26.

    S.C. 2000, c. 24.

  27. 27.

    Ibid., ss. 5, 7.

  28. 28.

    Ibid., s. 6.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., s. 8.

  30. 30.

    R. c. Munyaneza, 2009 QCCS 2201.

  31. 31.

    R. c. Mungwarere, 2013 ONCS 4594.

  32. 32.

    Munyaneza, supra n. 30.

  33. 33.

    Lafontaine 2010b, pp. 271–272. See also Currie and Stancu 2010.

  34. 34.

    Lafontaine 2010b, pp. 271–272.

  35. 35.

    Ibid., p. 272.

  36. 36.

    See Munyaneza, supra n. 30 at paras 2061–2075.

  37. 37.

    Specifically, the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” See Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2.

  38. 38.

    See Graditzky 1998.

  39. 39.

    Bermudez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 24 Admin LR (3d) 65 (Fed. Ct.).

  40. 40.

    See Correspondence with Matt Eisenbrandt, Legal Counsel for the Canadian Centre for International Justice (August 26, 2013).

  41. 41.

    Mungwarere, supra n. 31 at para 1260–1261.

  42. 42.

    Ibid at para 62.

  43. 43.

    The history of Canada’s experience pursuing war criminals on its territory is crucial to understanding how the system in place today has developed into what it is. For a more detailed discussion, see Purves 1998; Lafontaine 2012.

  44. 44.

    See Canadian Citizenship Act, 1946, 10 G. VI, c. 15, s. 10(d).

  45. 45.

    Deschênes 1986, pp. 7–8.

  46. 46.

    See e.g. Canada (Secretary of State) v. Luitjens [1992], 142 N.R. 173 (Fed. Ct. App.); Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Bogutin (1998), 144 F.T.R. 1 (Fed. Ct. Trial Div.); Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Baumgartner (2001); 211 F.T.R. 197 (Fed. Ct. Trial Div.), Canada v. Obodzinsky, 2003 FC 1080 (Fed. Ct.).

  47. 47.

    See Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Rogan, 2011 FC 1119.

  48. 48.

    Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 189 U.N.T.S. 150, entered into force April 22, 1954.

  49. 49.

    Deschênes 1986, pp. 230–232.

  50. 50.

    S.C. 2001, c. 27.

  51. 51.

    At least in the case of refugee hearings, these rights are constitutionally protected. Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177.

  52. 52.

    “Federal Government Announces WWII War Crimes Strategy,” Government of Canada news release, January 31 1995.

  53. 53.

    Canada, Canada Border Services Agency et al. 2011, p. 3.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., at p. 7.

  55. 55.

    Canada, Canada Border Services Agency et al. 2011, p. 17.

  56. 56.

    See e.g. Whitman 2008. See also Langbein et al. 2009, pp. 696–698.

  57. 57.

    Constitution Act, 1982, s. 11(f).

  58. 58.

    See e.g. Mutual Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Aubin, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 298 at p. 301.

  59. 59.

    Supra, n. 48.

  60. 60.

    Ramirez v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 2 F.C. 306 (C.A.) at pp. 311–312.

  61. 61.

    Ibid at 317–318.

  62. 62.

    Saridag v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J. No. 1516 at para 10.

  63. 63.

    See e.g. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mohsen, [2000] F.C.J. No. 1285.

  64. 64.

    Ezokola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 SCC 40.

  65. 65.

    IRPA s. 33.

  66. 66.

    It does not escape the author that the Star Chamber was technically a court of equity.

  67. 67.

    See e.g. Langbein 1996, pp. 1194–1195.

  68. 68.

    See e.g. Langbein et al. 2009, pp. 647–728.

  69. 69.

    IRPA s. 162(2).

  70. 70.

    See e.g. R. v. Henry, 2005 SCC 76.

  71. 71.

    See Bowen v. Canada, [1984] 2 F.C. 507 (C.A.).

  72. 72.

    Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689.

  73. 73.

    IRPA ss. 170–175; Thamotharem v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 198, [2008] 1 F.C.R. 385, at para 41; Kumar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 643 (CanLII), at paras 28–29.

  74. 74.

    Nicholas Keung, Surya Bhattacharya, and Jim Rankin, “How to stay in Canada by cooking up a story.” The Toronto Star, June 17 2007.

  75. 75.

    Citizenship and Immigration Canada, “News Release—Legislation targeting crooked immigration consultants receives Royal Assent,” March 23, 2011.

  76. 76.

    Canada Border Services Agency, “News Release Government of Canada Enlists Help of Canadians to Enforce Canada's Immigration Laws,” July 21, 2011.

  77. 77.

    http://www.cbsa.gc.ca/wc-cg/wanted-recherchees-eng.html

  78. 78.

    “Canada and international justice: Be off with you”, The Economist, August 4, 2011. http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2011/08/canada-and-international-justice. The Economist also made note of the case of Francisco Manuel Hernández Hernández, a former soldier in the Salvadoran army who filed a failed refugee claim in Canada in the early 1990s. Hernández, now a US citizen and evangelical pastor, had been living in New York since 1993, but his name found its way onto the list anyway, prompting him to come forward in order to clear his name. His name was subsequently removed from the list.

  79. 79.

    See e.g. Canada, Canada Border Services Agency et al. 2011, p. 4 (“The War Crimes Program emphasizes immigration remedies, … [which] have been found to be effective and cost-efficient. The most expensive and resource-intensive remedies are the criminal investigation and prosecution of war criminals—these methods are therefore pursued infrequently. Nonetheless, the ability to conduct criminal investigations and to prosecute is an important element of the War Crimes Program. In some cases, a criminal justice response is the most appropriate action and sends a strong message to Canadians and the international community that the Government of Canada does not tolerate impunity for war criminals or for persons who have committed crimes against humanity, or genocide.”); Canada, Canada Border Services Agency et al. 2008, p. 2 (“Remedies are restricted by available funding. Criminal investigations and prosecution, widely seen as essential to international justice, are the most expensive options and only pursued in a fraction of the cases. Therefore partners diligently seek the more cost-effective remedies…”).

  80. 80.

    See e.g. Lafontaine 2010a; Weiss 2012.

  81. 81.

    See e.g. Amnesty International Canada, “Open Letter to Ministers Toews and Kenney about "Wanted by the CBSA",” August 2, 2011; Letter of September 20, 2011 to Jason Kenney and Vic Toews from 16 organizations including Canadian Council for Refugees, Canadian Centre for International Justice, and Canadian Civil Liberties Association. http://www.criminallawyers.ca/pdf/Most_wanted-Letter_Kenney_Toews.pdf.

  82. 82.

    For views in favor see e.g. Bassiouni and Wise 1995; International Law Commission, Fourth Report on the obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare) by Zdzislaw Galicki, Special Rapporteur, UN GAOR, 63rd Sess., UN Doc. A/CN.4/648 (2011); cf Cryer et al. 2010. See also Bassiouni 2003, pp. 337–346.

  83. 83.

    First Geneva Convention Article 49; Second Geneva Convention Article 50; Third Geneva Convention Article 129; Fourth Geneva Convention Article 146.

  84. 84.

    Rome Statute, Preamble, sixth recital.

  85. 85.

    See e.g. Qadafi case, Cour d’appel de Paris, 20 October 2000, Revue Générale de Droit International Public (2001), 475.

  86. 86.

    IRPA, ss. 112–114.

  87. 87.

    Ibid., s. 114(1)(b).

  88. 88.

    Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons, Summary Record of the 24th Meeting, UN doc. A/CONF.2/SR.24, 27 Nov. 1 951, statements of Herment (Belgium) and Hoare (UK); Gilbert 2003, pp. 427–428.

  89. 89.

    The War Crimes Program suggests that in order for a case to be considered for prosecution, “the allegations must disclose personal involvement or command responsibility, and the evidence pertaining to the allegation must be corroborated and obtainable in a reasonable and rapid fashion, among other considerations.” Canada, Canada Border Services Agency et al. 2011, p. 10.

  90. 90.

    Ibid., at para 23. For instance, the court traveled to take witness evidence in Paris, Dar Es Salaam, and Kigali (twice), and most of the witnesses testified in Kinyarwanda, requiring extensive translation and interpretation. All told, the court heard 66 witnesses generating 16,000 pages of stenographic notes, and the parties filed briefs of 600 pages with tens of thousands of pages of additional authorities.

  91. 91.

    Ibid., at paras 25–29.

  92. 92.

    Canada, Department of Justice 2008.

  93. 93.

    See e.g. Helsingin Sanomat, Bazaramba plans to appeal genocide conviction (June 14, 2010).

  94. 94.

    Ibid.

  95. 95.

    Canada Border Services Agency et al. 2011, p. 4.

  96. 96.

    Lafontaine 2010a, pp. 43–44.

  97. 97.

    See e.g. Rome Statute Article 5(1).

  98. 98.

    2012 FC 74.

  99. 99.

    Ibid., at paras 21–32, 88–90.

  100. 100.

    Ibid., at paras 91–116.

  101. 101.

    See e.g. Amnesty International, Sri Lanka: Report exposes the government's violent repression of dissent, 30 April 2013, available at: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/sri-lanka-report-exposes-government-s-violent-repression-dissent-2013-04-30 (“It is abundantly clear that Colombo is unwilling and unable to investigate the credible allegations of crimes under international law, including war crimes, during the conflict.”); United States Department of State, 2012 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices—Sri Lanka, 19 April 2013 at p. 34 (“Many international and national observers stated that the LLRC did not adequately address accountability for alleged war crimes committed by the government and the LTTE during the final months of the conflict and that the LLRC report exonerated the government of any wrongdoing.”); United Kingdom: Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights and Democracy: The 2011 Foreign & Commonwealth Office Report, April 2012 at p. 318 (“No concrete progress was made in holding accountable those alleged to be responsible for violations of international human rights and humanitarian law during the final stages of the war.”); Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2013—Sri Lanka, 10 June 2013, available at: http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2013/sri-lanka (“The government continued to reject credible allegations of war crimes committed in the final phase of its military campaign against the Tamil Tiger rebel group in 2009, even as the UN Human Rights Council passed a critical resolution calling for an investigation into these issues.”); Human Rights Watch, World Report 2013—Sri Lanka, 31 January 2013, available at: http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/sri-lanka (“The Sri Lankan government in 2012 continued its assault on democratic space and failed to take any meaningful steps towards providing accountability for war crimes committed by either side during the internal armed conflict that ended in 2009,” “There has been no information regarding actions of the special army courts of inquiry, supposedly established in 2012 to look into allegations of war crimes.”).

  102. 102.

    Ibid.; see also UN Secretary-General (UNSG), Report of the Secretary General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka, 31 March 2011 (“the Panel found credible allegations, which if proven, indicate that a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law was committed both by the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.”); International Crisis Group, War Crimes in Sri Lanka, Asia Report N°191, 17 May 2010, available at: http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/south-asia/sri-lanka/191-war-crimes-in-sri-lanka.aspx (“This evidence also provides reasonable grounds to believe the Sri Lankan security forces committed war crimes with top government and military leaders potentially responsible.”).

  103. 103.

    See e.g. Currie and Stancu 2010.

  104. 104.

    Mungwarere, supra n. 31 at para 17.

  105. 105.

    See e.g. Loordu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) [2001] F.C.J. No. 141.

  106. 106.

    Kuruparan at paras 106–109.

  107. 107.

    2005 SCC 40.

  108. 108.

    Ibid., at para 82.

  109. 109.

    Ibid., at para 126.

  110. 110.

    Prosecutor v. Erdemović, Judgement. Case No. IT-96-22-A, at para 3.

  111. 111.

    Ibid., at para 4.

  112. 112.

    Ibid, at para 19.

  113. 113.

    See Ramirez, supra n. 60; Oberlander v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 FCA 330; Ezokola, supra n. 64 at para 86.

  114. 114.

    Prosecutor v. Erdemović, Joint Separate Opinion of Judge McDonald and Judge Vohrah. Case No. IT-96-22-A, at paras 42, 49, 60.

  115. 115.

    Prosecutor v. Erdemović, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Li. Case No. IT-96-22-A, at para 7.

  116. 116.

    Refugee Appeal No. 1655/93 Re MSI, New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority (23 November 1995); Gurung v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2002] UKIAT 04870, United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (14 October 2002); Sryyy v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 220 A.L.R. 394 (Federal Court of Australia).

  117. 117.

    Negusie v. Holder (2009), 555 U.S. 511.

  118. 118.

    Rome Statute Article 31(1)(d).

  119. 119.

    Prosecutor v. Erdemović, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cassese. Case No. IT-96-22-A, at para 49.

  120. 120.

    2001 FCT 972 at paras 3–6.

  121. 121.

    Ibid at paras 7, 12.

  122. 122.

    Ibid at paras 29–35.

  123. 123.

    Ibid at para 38.

  124. 124.

    2010 FC 403.

  125. 125.

    Ibid at para 40.

  126. 126.

    Ramirez, supra n. 60.

  127. 127.

    Fabela v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1028 at para 24; Ali v. Canada (Solicitor General), 2005 FC 1306 at para 10. The Supreme Court in Ezokola, supra n. 64, later revised these factors slightly to include: (i) the size and nature of the organization; (ii) the part of the organization with which the refugee claimant was most directly concerned; (iii) the refugee claimant’s duties and activities within the organization; (iv) the refugee claimant’s position or rank in the organization; (v) the length of time the refugee claimant was in the organization, particularly after acquiring knowledge of the group’s crime or criminal purpose; and (vi) the method by which the refugee claimant was recruited and the refugee claimant’s opportunity to leave the organization. See Ezokola, supra n. 64, at para 91.

  128. 128.

    R (on the application of JS) (Sri Lanka) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant), [2010] UKSC 15 at para 30.

  129. 129.

    Refugee Appeal No. 1248/93, Re TP, No. 1248/93, New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority, 31 July 1995.

  130. 130.

    W97/164 and MIMA [1998] AATA 618, para 7.

  131. 131.

    Although not in the strict sense, as the “personal and knowing participation” test predates the modern articulation and formulation of the joint criminal enterprise theory.

  132. 132.

    Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Ekanza Ezokola, 2011 FCA 22 at para 68.

  133. 133.

    Prosecutor v. Tadić, Judgment. Case No. IT-94-1-A, 15 July 1999; Prosecutor v. Delalić et alia, Judgment. Case No. IT-96-21-A, 20 February 2001; Prosecutor v. Kvočka et alia, Judgment. Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, 28 February 2005.

  134. 134.

    Rome Statute Article 25(3).

  135. 135.

    Ezokola (Supreme Court), supra at para 84.

  136. 136.

    Ibid at para 19.

  137. 137.

    2011 FC 666.

  138. 138.

    Ibid at para 6.

  139. 139.

    Ibid at paras 7–21.

  140. 140.

    Ibid at para 51.

  141. 141.

    Ibid at para 52.

  142. 142.

    Ibid at para 54. See also Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Hajialikhani, [1999] 1 FC 181 (T.D.), at para 24.

  143. 143.

    Ibid at para 53.

  144. 144.

    See Zazai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1356 at paras 49–50.

  145. 145.

    Ramirez, supra n. 60.

  146. 146.

    R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21.

  147. 147.

    The terms “indictable” and “summary conviction” merely refer to the two main classifications of crimes in the Canadian criminal law system, with the former category generally being the more serious. All that need be known for the present purposes is that all the core crimes defined in the War Crimes Act are indictable offenses.

  148. 148.

    R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

  149. 149.

    This has recently been confirmed judicially in Mungwarere, supra n. 31, at paras 50–51.

  150. 150.

    Ibid., s. 21(1).

  151. 151.

    Ibid., s. 22.

  152. 152.

    Ibid., s. 21(2).

  153. 153.

    Ibid., s. 16.

  154. 154.

    Ibid., s. 33.1.

  155. 155.

    Mungwarere, supra n. 31 at para 62.

  156. 156.

    See Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 at para 69.

  157. 157.

    For a thorough discussion on the differences between the general principles of criminal liability applicable under Canadian and international criminal law, see Lafontaine 2012, Part III.

  158. 158.

    See e.g. Kiobel Lafontaine Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010).

  159. 159.

    Meaning “a representative who plays an important role in the establishment of an organization’s policies or is responsible for managing an important aspect of the organization’s activities and, in the case of a body corporate, includes a director, its chief executive officer and its chief financial officer.” Criminal Code s. 2, “senior officer.”

  160. 160.

    Other than offenses requiring the prosecution to prove negligence, to which different rules of corporate liability apply. See Criminal Code s. 22.1.

  161. 161.

    Criminal Code s. 22.2.

  162. 162.

    Ibid.

  163. 163.

    See also Dragatsi 2011; Wanless 2009.

  164. 164.

    See e.g. Kyriakakis 2007.

  165. 165.

    2010 QCCA 1455 [Bil’in Appeal Judgment].

  166. 166.

    Ibid at paras 9–15.

  167. 167.

    Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49, para 6; Rome Statute Article 8(2)(b)(viii).

  168. 168.

    Code Civil du Québec, L.R.Q., c. C-1991, Article 3135.

  169. 169.

    2009 QCCS 4151 at para 175 [Bil’in Motion Judgment].

  170. 170.

    Lapidoth 1992 at p. 452.

  171. 171.

    Bil’in Motion Judgment at paras 280–288.

  172. 172.

    War Crimes Act, s. 6(4).

  173. 173.

    Bil’in Appeal Judgment at para 99.

  174. 174.

    Bil’in Motion Judgment at paras 324–326.

  175. 175.

    2012 QCCA 117 [Anvil Mining Appeal Judgment].

  176. 176.

    Association canadienne contre l'impunité (ACCI) c. Anvil Mining Ltd., 2011 QCCS 1966 at para 26 [Anvil Mining Judgment Decision].

  177. 177.

    Ibid at paras 13–39.

  178. 178.

    Anvil Mining Appeal Judgment at paras 52–94.

  179. 179.

    For a detailed analysis of this decision, see Yap 2010.

  180. 180.

    Code civil du Québec, Article 3136.

  181. 181.

    The doctrine is Swiss in origin. See Loi fédérale sur le droit international privé, R.O. 1988 1776, Article 3. The provision reads, “Lorsque la présente loi ne prévoit aucun for en Suisse et qu’une procédure à l’étranger se révèle impossible ou qu’on ne peut raisonnablement exiger qu’elle y soit introduite, les autorités judiciaires ou administratives suisses du lieu avec lequel la cause présente un lien suffisant sont compétentes.”

  182. 182.

    Anvil Mining Motion Judgment at para 39.

  183. 183.

    2007 SCC 26.

  184. 184.

    Ibid at para 69.

  185. 185.

    Ibid at para 68.

  186. 186.

    Ibid at para 101.

  187. 187.

    See e.g. Ibid., Reasons of Binnie J., paras 181–192.

  188. 188.

    See e.g. Currie J H 2007; Currie R J 2010 at 530–37.

  189. 189.

    Amnesty International Canada v. Canada (Chief of the Defence Staff), 2008 FC 336 [Amnesty International Canada Motion Judgment] at para 340.

  190. 190.

    2008 SCC 28.

  191. 191.

    Ibid. at para 19.

  192. 192.

    Ibid. at para 21.

  193. 193.

    Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006).

  194. 194.

    Hape at para 23.

  195. 195.

    2008 FCA 401 [Amnesty International Appeal Judgment].

  196. 196.

    See e.g. Amnesty International Canada v. Canada Motion Judgment at para 76.

  197. 197.

    See e.g. Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 1.

  198. 198.

    Amnesty International Appeal Judgment at para 20.

  199. 199.

    See e.g. Mohammed, R (On the Application Of) v. The Secretary of State for Defence [2012] EWHC 3454 (Admin).

  200. 200.

    Embassy, “War criminal campaign derided as ‘misleading’: Government accused of muddying the waters between immigration, criminal law,” Kristen Shane, 3 August 2011.

  201. 201.

    Lafontaine 2012 at p. 282.

  202. 202.

    Bil’in Motion Judgment at para 248. Cullen J. specifically makes note of an expert witness’ use of the term “international humanitarian law,” and goes on to cite one author’s opinion that the term “international human rights law” is “a convenient but perhaps confusing category of reference devoid of intrinsic substance.”

  203. 203.

    See e.g. ICTY: Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Judgement. Case No. IT-96-23/1-A & IT-96-23/1-A, fn. 114; ICTR: Nahimana v. Prosecutor, Judgement. Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, para 699.

  204. 204.

    See also Rikhof 2006, pp. 719–22.

References

  • Abella I, Troper H (1982) None is too many: Canada and the Jews of Europe, 1933–1948. University of Toronto Press, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassiouni MC (2003) Introduction to international criminal law. Transnational Publishers, Ardsley

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassiouni MC, Wise EM (1995) Aut Dedere Aut Judicare: The Duty to Extradite or Prosecute in International Law. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Canada, Canada Border Services Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Department of Justice, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (2008) Canada’s Program on Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes: Eleventh annual report, 2007–2008

    Google Scholar 

  • Canada, Canada Border Services Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Department of Justice, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (2011) Canada’s Program on Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes: Twelfth annual report, 2008–2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Canada, Department of Justice (2008) Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program—Summative Evaluation: Final Report. Evaluation Division, Office of Strategic Planning and Performance Management, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (2008) International criminal law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cryer R, Friman H, Robinson D, Wilmshurst E (2010) An introduction to international criminal law and procedure, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Currie JH (2007) Weaving a tangled Web: Hape and the obfuscation of Canadian reception law. Can Yearb Int Law 45:55

    Google Scholar 

  • Currie RJ (2010) International and transnational criminal law. Irwin Law, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Currie RJ, Stancu I (2010) R. v. Munyaneza: pondering Canada’s first core crimes conviction. Int Crim Law Rev 10(5):829–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deschênes J (1986) Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals Report, Part 1: Public. Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Dragatsi H (2011) Criminal liability of Canadian corporations for international crimes. Carswell, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert G (2003) Current issues in the application of the exclusion clauses. In: Feller E, Turk V, Nicholson F (eds) Refugee protection in international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 425–478

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Graditzky T (1998) Individual criminal responsibility for violations of international humanitarian law committed in non-international armed conflicts. Int Rev Red Cross 322:29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogg PW (2007) Constitutional Law of Canada, 5th edn. Carswell, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyriakakis J (2007) Australian prosecution of corporations for international crimes: the potential of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. J Int Crim Justice 5:809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lafontaine F (2010a) The unbearable lightness of international obligations: when and how to exercise jurisdiction under Canada’s Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Revue québécoise de droit international 23(2):1

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafontaine F (2010b) Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act on Trial: An Analysis of the Munyaneza Case. J Int Crim Justice 8:269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lafontaine F (2012) Prosecuting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Canadian Courts. Carswell, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Langbein JH (1996) Historical foundations of the law of evidence: a view from the Ryder Sources. Columbia Law Rev 96:1168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langbein JH, Lerner RL, Smith BP (2009) History of the common law: the development of the Anglo-American legal institutions. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapidoth R (1992) International law within the Israel legal system. Israel Law Rev 24:451

    Google Scholar 

  • Purves G (1998) War Criminals: The Deschênes Commission. Parliamentary Research Branch, Library of Parliament, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Rikhof J (2006) Complicity in international criminal law and Canadian refugee law: a comparison. J Int Crim Justice 4:702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanless WC (2009) Corporate liability for international crimes under Canada’s Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. J Int Crim Justice 7:201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss N (2012) Somebody else’s problem: how the United States and Canada violate international law and fail to ensure the prosecution of war criminals. Case West Reserve J Int Law 45:579

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitman JQ (2008) The origins of reasonable doubt: theological roots of the criminal trial. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Yap J (2010) Corporate civil liability for war crimes in Canadian courts lessons from Bil’in (Village Council) v. Green Park International Ltd. J Int Crim Justice 8:631

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Siskinds LLP, Toronto, Canada

    James Yap

Authors
  1. James Yap
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Yap .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, USA

    Derek Jinks

  2. Law, University of Manchester, Manchester, Lancashire, United Kingdom

    Jackson N. Maogoto

  3. Dickson Poon School of Law, King's College London, London, United Kingdom

    Solon Solomon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Yap, J. (2014). Aut Deportare Aut Judicare: Current Topics in International Humanitarian Law in Canada. In: Jinks, D., Maogoto, J., Solomon, S. (eds) Applying International Humanitarian Law in Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Bodies. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-008-4_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation