Quebec’s Bill 9 Is a Direct Attack on the Fundamental Freedoms of All Quebecers – Canadian Civil Liberties Association

Federal Court Ruling on Refugee Rights and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction: Case Summary

A recent Federal Court decision in the case of Slepcsik v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1840, has raised significant concerns regarding Canada’s commitment to international human rights principles and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The Court ruled that a refugee’s fundamental rights under section 7 of the Charter—the right to life, liberty, and security of the person—are not legally engaged until the final stage of physical removal from the country. This report analyzes the decision’s impact on key SDGs, particularly SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

The case involved a refugee, Mr. Slepcsik, who lost his permanent resident status following a determination by the Refugee Protection Division that he had reavailed himself of the protection of his country of origin. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, this finding triggers an automatic process leading to removal, irrespective of the individual’s time or integration in Canada.

2.0 Analysis of the Decision in the Context of SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The court’s ruling presents a direct challenge to the principles enshrined in SDG 16, which calls for the promotion of just, peaceful, and inclusive societies.

• Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law and ensure equal access to justice for all. The decision limits the application of the rule of law by deferring the protection of fundamental rights. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), an intervener in the case, argued that for justice to be accessible and equal, rights must be protected throughout the entirety of the legal process, from the initiation of status revocation proceedings to the final removal order. By rejecting this holistic approach, the court has created a procedural vulnerability that undermines equal access to justice for a marginalized group.
• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions. An accountable institution is one that respects fundamental rights at every stage of its decision-making. The ruling permits immigration authorities to make life-altering decisions without the constitutional scrutiny required by section 7 until the process is nearly complete. This lack of continuous oversight weakens the accountability of the immigration and refugee system.

3.0 Implications for SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The decision also has profound implications for SDG 10, which aims to reduce inequality within and among countries by ensuring equal opportunity and protecting the rights of vulnerable populations.

1. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome. The ruling creates an inequality of outcome for refugees. By failing to protect their right to security of the person during the early stages of cessation proceedings, the legal framework exposes them to prolonged periods of uncertainty and distress, which directly impacts their social and economic stability and contravenes the goal of ensuring equal opportunity.
2. Target 10.7: Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration. A responsible migration policy, as envisioned by this target, must be grounded in the protection of human rights. The court’s interpretation suggests that the “safety” of an individual is only a legal concern at the moment of deportation, not during the preceding administrative and legal phases that determine their fate. This narrow view is inconsistent with a rights-based and responsible approach to migration management.

4.0 Conclusion: A Setback for Human Rights and Sustainable Development

The Federal Court’s decision in Slepcsik v. Canada is viewed by civil liberties advocates as a significant setback. It narrows the scope of fundamental rights for refugees in Canada, leaving them exposed during critical stages of the status revocation process. This judicial interpretation runs contrary to the foundational principles of the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly the commitment to building strong, just institutions (SDG 16) and reducing inequalities for vulnerable groups (SDG 10). The CCLA has expressed its disappointment, noting that the decision leaves individuals unprotected at points where life-altering decisions are made, thereby undermining Canada’s progress toward a more just and equitable society.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• The article focuses on the legal rights of a refugee, Mr. Slepcsik, who belongs to a vulnerable group. The issues discussed relate to ensuring that the legal framework in Canada does not disproportionately affect the rights of refugees and migrants compared to other individuals. The case examines the application of fundamental rights to non-citizens facing the loss of status and removal, which is central to reducing inequalities within a country’s legal system.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The core of the article is a legal challenge concerning access to justice and the rule of law. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) intervened to argue that fundamental rights under the Charter, specifically “the right to life, liberty, and security of the person,” should apply throughout the entire legal process for a refugee. This directly engages with the principles of ensuring equal access to justice for all and holding national institutions, like the Federal Court, accountable to constitutional principles.

Specific SDG Targets Identified

1. Target 10.7: Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.

   • The article discusses the legal framework governing refugees in Canada, specifically the “Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.” The case challenges the constitutionality of provisions within this act that lead to the automatic loss of permanent resident status and removal. The CCLA’s argument for protecting rights “at every stage” is an effort to ensure that Canada’s migration and refugee policies are managed in a way that is just and respects fundamental human rights.

2. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

   • This target is directly relevant as the entire article revolves around a legal case challenging the application of the rule of law. The CCLA argued that Mr. Slepcsik’s “section 7 Charter rights” should be protected throughout the entire cessation and removal process, not just at the final moment. This is a clear effort to ensure that a refugee has equal access to justice and that legal principles are applied consistently and fairly. The Federal Court’s decision to reject this approach is presented as a setback for this principle.

3. Target 16.9: By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.

   • The case concerns the stripping of Mr. Slepcsik’s “permanent resident status,” which is a form of legal identity in Canada that confers significant rights and security. The automatic loss of this status, as described in the article, directly impacts an individual’s legal identity and their ability to remain in the country. The legal challenge addresses the process by which this crucial legal status can be revoked, connecting it to the broader goal of securing legal identity for all residents.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

1. Indicator for Target 16.3: Existence and interpretation of laws and policies guaranteeing access to justice.

   • The article implicitly points to this indicator through its discussion of the “Immigration and Refugee Protection Act” and the “Charter” rights. The Federal Court’s judgment, which holds that a refugee’s rights “are not engaged until immediately before an individual is physically removed,” serves as a direct measure of how access to justice is being interpreted by national institutions. The CCLA’s intervention and legal arguments represent efforts to influence this interpretation to be more inclusive.

2. Indicator for Target 10.7: The nature of legal and administrative procedures for revoking refugee or permanent resident status.

   • The article describes a specific procedure where a finding by the Refugee Protection Division “automatically results in the loss of permanent resident status and leads to removal.” This process itself is an indicator of how Canada’s migration policy is managed. The legal challenge to these provisions and the court’s ruling on when rights must be considered are qualitative data points that measure whether this policy is “well-managed” and rights-respecting.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

Source: ccla.org