Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The justiciability of the Minister’s decision to refuse a United Nations Human Rights Committee Interim Measures Request (IMR) in the context of deportation proceedings.

• Whether the Ontario Superior Court or the Federal Court has jurisdiction to review the Minister’s exercise of Crown prerogative regarding international treaty obligations.

• The reasonableness of the Minister’s decision to proceed with removal in the absence of reasons, especially when departing from normal practice.

• The impact of non-binding international obligations, such as the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on domestic administrative decisions.

• Consideration of the applicant’s mental health and risks upon removal, weighed against public safety concerns in the Danger Opinion process.

• The extent to which principles of non-refoulement and responsive justification constrain the Minister’s discretion in removal cases.

Facts of the case

Mahir Mahya Sharif, a Somali national and former refugee, was resettled in Canada as a permanent resident in 2019 after fleeing with his mother from Egypt. In 2022, Mr. Sharif was convicted of several criminal offences, including sexual assault and drug trafficking, leading to a finding of inadmissibility under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and the issuance of a deportation order. He subsequently lost his permanent resident status. In May 2025, a Danger Opinion concluded that the risk Mr. Sharif posed to the Canadian public outweighed the dangers he might face if returned to Somalia, permitting his removal despite his refugee status.

Mr. Sharif suffers from significant mental health issues, including schizophrenia, and was involuntarily hospitalized shortly before the scheduled deportation. He is currently detained in an immigration facility. After exhausting domestic remedies, Mr. Sharif submitted a communication to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, alleging that his removal would violate Canada’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The UN Committee issued an Interim Measures Request (IMR), asking Canada to delay removal until the Committee considered his complaint. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness declined to accede to this request, and Mr. Sharif sought judicial review in the Ontario Superior Court.

Policy terms and clauses at issue

The case centered on the non-binding nature of the UN Committee’s IMR under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Canada has ratified but not incorporated into domestic law. The Minister’s decision was characterized as an exercise of Crown prerogative in international relations rather than a statutory duty under the IRPA. The applicant argued that the Minister’s refusal to provide reasons for departing from the usual practice of acceding to IMRs was unreasonable, especially given the grave consequences for Mr. Sharif.

Jurisdictional and legal arguments

The Minister contended that the decision was not justiciable and, if reviewable, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court. The applicant maintained that the Ontario Superior Court had concurrent jurisdiction, particularly where the exercise of pure Crown prerogative was concerned. The court reviewed relevant precedents, including Ahani v. Canada and Toussaint v. Canada, and concluded that while the Federal Court has expertise in immigration matters, the Ontario Superior Court retains jurisdiction over certain administrative law challenges involving Crown prerogative and international treaty obligations.

The court’s analysis and findings

Justice Hackland found that the Minister’s decision not to accede to the IMR was indeed an exercise of Crown prerogative and was justiciable, given its direct impact on Mr. Sharif’s rights. However, the court held that the Minister was not required to provide reasons for refusing the IMR, as neither domestic legislation nor the Optional Protocol imposed such an obligation. The court emphasized that IMRs are non-binding and that Canada’s practice of sometimes acceding to them does not create a legal right or legitimate expectation for individuals facing removal.

The court also noted that the principles of responsive justification and non-refoulement were considered during the Danger Opinion process and had already been subject to judicial review in the Federal Court. The Minister’s decision was found to be reasonable in the circumstances, given the absence of statutory constraints and the established practice regarding IMRs.

Ruling and outcome

The Ontario Superior Court dismissed Mr. Sharif’s application for judicial review, upholding the Minister’s decision to proceed with removal without providing reasons for declining the UN Committee’s IMR. The court varied its earlier stay of removal, allowing Mr. Sharif a 30-day window to seek further relief in the Federal Court of Appeal or other appropriate forum. The costs of the application were reserved for the appellate court. No specific monetary award was determined in this decision, as the matter concerned the lawfulness of the removal order rather than damages or compensation. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was the successful party in this proceeding.