Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review challenged the Minister’s refusal to recommend delisting the applicants from Canada’s Russia sanctions list.

• The applicants, daughters of sanctioned Russian oligarch Mikhail Fridman, argued they are financially independent and oppose the war in Ukraine.

• Canada’s sanctions regime allows family members of designated individuals to be listed to prevent asset evasion.

• Evidence showed both applicants had received substantial financial support from their father in recent years.

• The court emphasized the lack of estrangement and the absence of evidence distancing the applicants from their father.

• Minister’s decision found reasonable; the application was dismissed with costs awarded against the applicants.

Facts and outcome of the case

This case involved two consolidated applications for judicial review brought by Katia Fridman and Laura Fridman, daughters of Russian billionaire Mikhail Fridman. They were added to Canada’s sanctions list under section 2(d) of the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations as “family members” of their father, who had been listed under section 2(c) as an “associate” of President Vladimir Putin. Their inclusion occurred as part of Canada’s broader response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, aiming to disrupt financial channels and prevent sanctioned individuals from using relatives to circumvent restrictions.

The Fridman sisters sought to be delisted, asserting their financial independence from their father, a lack of involvement in his business, and personal opposition to the war in Ukraine. They emphasized they had not lived in Russia since childhood and that they received only customary parental financial support in the past. However, their applications acknowledged receiving significant monetary support from Mr. Fridman up until shortly before and after his sanctioning, including rent, tuition, and cash gifts. The applicants were not estranged from their father, and he provided no affidavit or testimony to assist their claims.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs denied their applications to be delisted, concluding that the applicants had not demonstrated “reasonable grounds” to recommend their removal from the sanctions list. The Minister emphasized the preventive purpose of the sanctions regime—namely, to mitigate the risk of sanctions evasion through close family members. The applicants then brought the matter to the Federal Court, arguing that the Minister’s decisions were unreasonable and discriminatory.

Justice Henry S. Brown dismissed the applications. He found that the Minister’s decisions were reasonable, well-grounded in law and evidence, and consistent with Canada’s statutory and international policy objectives. The court emphasized that sanctions under the Special Economic Measures Act are preventative and do not require proof of actual wrongdoing or asset transfers. The applicants' continued ties to their father, their admitted history of financial dependence, and the lack of compelling distancing evidence supported the Minister’s refusal.

The court rejected the applicants' arguments concerning discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, noting their lack of legal status or connection to Canada. It also declined to apply jurisprudence from the European Union concerning sanctions, emphasizing the unique context and legislative framework of Canadian law. Finally, the court awarded the respondents $10,000 in lump sum costs—$5,000 per application.