MB9-11985

MB9-11985

Applying Pushpanathan and Ezokola, the tribunal held that Article 1F(c) can apply to non‑state actors and that the cumulative circumstantial evidence provided serious reasons for considering the appellant participated in trafficking that enabled rebel arms procurement, or at least was complicit through reckless conduct, thus excluding him from protection.

Citation
MB9-11985
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Intervener: Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed; RPD decision affirmed; appellant excluded from protection under Article 1F(c) of the Convention
Legal Topics
Article 1 F(c) Exclusion, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Pushpanathan Precedent, Ezokola Precedent, Complicity, Trafficking of Resources Used to Procure Arms
Source Language
English
Refugee Law Immigration Law International Law Administrative Law Article 1 F(c) Exclusion Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Pushpanathan Precedent Ezokola Precedent +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 1F(c) applies to non-state actors
  2. 2 Whether RPD erred by relying on circumstantial evidence and speculation
  3. 3 Whether appellant's conduct met the Ezokola test for complicity (voluntary, knowing, significant contribution)

Ratio Decidendi

Applying Pushpanathan and Ezokola, the tribunal held that Article 1F(c) can apply to non‑state actors and that the cumulative circumstantial evidence provided serious reasons for considering the appellant participated in trafficking that enabled rebel arms procurement, or at least was complicit through reckless conduct, thus excluding him from protection.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; RPD decision affirmed; appellant excluded from protection under Article 1F(c) of the Convention

Orders

  • Dismissal of the appeal
  • Confirmation of Refugee Protection Division decision excluding the appellant from protection under Article 1F(c)