Ezokola v. Canada

This article comments on the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Ezokola v. Canada. The case concerned the interpretation of Article 1F(a) of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which provides that people with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that they have committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity shall be disqualified from the refugee definition and thus be excluded from the protection of the Convention. This article discusses what prompted the Supreme Court to adopt a new test to establish...

This article comments on the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Ezokola v. Canada. The case concerned the interpretation of Article 1F(a) of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which provides that people with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that they have committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity shall be disqualified from the refugee definition and thus be excluded from the protection of the Convention. This article discusses what prompted the Supreme Court to adopt a new test to establish complicity under Article 1F(a) and its methodology in doing so. Furthermore, it examines in detail this new complicity test and offers some brief conclusions on the role and place of the Ezokola judgment in Canadian, international, and comparative refugee law-making.