Sarah Boyd of UofT Law raises some interesting issues with the Laibar Singh case on Thinking Out Loud.

Singh is a 48-year man from India who entered Canada on a forged passport in 2003. But in 2006, he has a massive stroke that left him a paralyzed quadriplegic.

The Federal government ordered a 60-day stay on the proceedings, but when he tried to leave last December over a thousand protesters blocked traffic and caused delays making the deportation impossible.

Singh claims he will not be able to get proper medical treatment in India.

Boyd is fine with deporting Singh on the basis of his medical claims alone, and cites the Supreme Court case Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward,

…international refugee law was meant to serve as a “substitute” for national protection where the latter was not provided. For this reason, the international role was qualified by built-in limitations. These restricting mechanisms reflect the fact that the international community did not intend to offer a haven for all suffering individuals. The need for “persecution” in order to warrant international protection, for example, results in the exclusion of such pleas as those of economic migrants, i.e., individuals in search of better living conditions, and those of victims of natural disasters, even when the home state is unable to provide assistance, although both of these cases might seem deserving of international sanctuary.

What she takes issue with the simplistic and intolerant comments found on the CBC site. She says,

It is often impossible for genuine refugees to leave their country of residence with legal documents, as they are being persecuted and cannot obtain them. That may not be the case here, but “He’s illegal, deport him!” is not only narrow-minded, but potentially illegal in domestic and international law.

The law she refers to is Article 31 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (or 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention),

Article 31. – Refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Boyd demonstrates that legally the same effect can be achieved, but due process and legal rational must be observed. She ends with further questions though, saying,

If you’re being persecuted by your government, how exactly are you going to obtain a passport? Or, if you need to escape that country to save your life, but you need a visa to enter a reasonable country of refuge, but that country won’t issue you a visa if it thinks you’re going to become a refugee, are you supposed to just sit there and die?