UN Treaty Body Petitions Against Canada

This page lists communications against Canada since 2016 in which a UN treaty body adopted Views on the merits, together with the one recent CAT decision specifically identified as raising concerns about an interim-measures request.

Optional Protocol to the ICCPR

Human Rights Committee communications involving Canada with Views on the merits since 2016.

Convention against Torture Article 22 Communications

Canada's CAT individual communications procedure is based on its article 22 declaration rather than a separate optional protocol.

Optional Protocol to CEDAW

Optional Protocol to CRPD

No CRPD Committee Views against Canada were identified in the Government of Canada public index or the UN treaty-body jurisprudence records reviewed for this page.

Pending Petitions Located

Some treaty bodies publish pending-case information, including CESCR and CRC. Canada has not accepted the individual-communications procedures under those treaties. For Canada's accepted UN treaty-body procedures, the public OHCHR records list decisions and follow-up materials rather than a public pending-case table naming registered Canada communications before decision. The publicly listed pending petitions located are before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

Follow-up Assessments Located

• Toussaint v Canada: the Human Rights Committee assessed Canada's follow-up as E for adequate compensation and E for non-repetition, including review of national legislation. The Committee's assessment states that grade E applies where information or measures taken are contrary to, or reflect rejection of, the recommendation. Follow-up progress report, CCPR/C/127/3.
• McIvor and Grismer v Canada: the Human Rights Committee assessed Canada's follow-up as B on inclusive interpretation of section 6(1)(a) of the Indian Act, B on steps to address residual discrimination within First Nations communities, and B on non-repetition, meaning partially satisfactory implementation with further information or action required. Follow-up progress report, CCPR/C/134/4.
• Matson et al. v Canada: the CEDAW Committee assessed Canada's follow-up as C, meaning implementation unsatisfactory: a reply was received but no action was taken to implement the Views. The Committee closed the follow-up dialogue. CEDAW follow-up progress report, CEDAW/C/90/3.

Systemic Patterns of Non-Implementation of Decisions on Petitions

• Toussaint v Canada: Canada has refused to implement the Human Rights Committee's recommendations to compensate Ms. Toussaint and review national legislation so irregular migrants can access essential health care when life is at foreseeable risk. The Committee graded Canada E for both compensation and non-repetition, reflecting rejection of the recommendation. The post-petition page on this website tracks the continuing Charter challenge to Canada's failure to give effect to the Committee's Views. Toussaint petition and follow-up.
• McIvor and Grismer v Canada: Canada has not fully implemented the Human Rights Committee's recommendation to eliminate the continuing effects of sex discrimination in Indian Act registration, address residual discrimination in First Nations communities and prevent recurrence. The Committee graded Canada's follow-up B, requiring further action. FAFIA states that the Indian Act Sex Discrimination Working Group, which it supports and convenes, continues to press for an end to Indian Act sex discrimination; FAFIA's Bill S-2 resource hub links to 2025 submissions and testimony on reforms now before Parliament. Bill S-2 is currently before the House of Commons committee and, as amended by the Senate, would address the second-generation cut-off through a single-parent rule and remove no-liability clauses. FAFIA Bill S-2 resource hub; Bill S-2 on LEGISinfo.
• Matson et al. v Canada: Canada has rejected the CEDAW Committee's finding that the Indian Act continues to discriminate against Indigenous women and their descendants, and has not provided equal registration, reparation or legislative reform sufficient to implement the Views. CEDAW graded Canada's follow-up C and closed the dialogue. FAFIA's Indian Act sex discrimination materials state that Bill C-38, now reintroduced as Bill S-2, was another narrow amendment that failed to finally remove sex discrimination; the current Senate-amended Bill S-2 would go further by eliminating the second-generation cut-off if maintained in the House of Commons. FAFIA Indian Act sex discrimination overview; Indigenous Services Canada Bill S-2 summary; CEDAW/C/90/3.
• Abdilahi Ahmed Elmi v Canada: public reports state that Canada cancelled the scheduled August 2019 deportation to Somalia after the Human Rights Committee requested interim measures, and that Mr. Elmi was later released from immigration detention. The Centre for Civil and Political Rights case digest records the Committee's remedy as requiring Canada to refrain from deporting him to Somalia. CBC/Garowe report; CCPR Centre case digest.
• L.M. v Canada: the CAT decision records that Canada returned the complainant to Rwanda in January 2012 despite interim measures. It also records that his trial in Rwanda began in 2012 and that he was sentenced to life imprisonment in April 2016. CAT/C/63/D/488/2012.
• H.S. v Canada: the CAT decision records that Canada initially acceded to interim measures but removed the complainant to India on 1 August 2018 while the communication was still pending. The Committee ultimately declared the communication inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. CAT/C/68/D/568/2013.

Systemic implementation issues

Canada's response to these petitions point to recurring systemic issues that must be addressed urgently: no clear domestic mechanism to implement systemic remedies required in Views, to provide compensation or reopen decisions; narrow and delayed legislative responses such as in McIvor and Grismer and Matson; and weak safeguards to ensure removals are suspended when interim measures or non-refoulement concerns are before a treaty body. Of particular concern is that the Canadian government continues to urge courts to disregard treaty body decisions and to deny access to courts to have these decisions considered. In the Toussaint case, Canada has employed various strategies to delay and deny access to courts to allow them to consider the effects of the Committee's Views on the Charter rights of irregular migrants. Canada also presents the position of “Canada” as the position taken by Canadian governments in Charter cases, even when, as is the case with recent climate change litigation, the courts have not agreed with Canada's position on the right to life.

At the most recent review of Canada by the UN Human Rights Committee, the Committee recommended that Canada “guarantee the right of victims to an effective remedy, including through national courts, in accordance with article 2 (2) and (3) of the Covenant. It should also consider recognizing the right of authors of communications to whom the Committee has granted any measure of reparation to demand before the national courts the implementation of such measures.” At a minimum, victims should be ensured access to courts to review whether Canada has complied with the standard of good faith under international law in its response to any recommendations, including systemic remedies of non-repetition, and to consider the implications of Views for the presumption of conformity of Charter rights with similar provisions in international human rights law.