Issue relates to heightened intent requirement for organizations allegedly engaging in terrorism
The Federal Court of Appeal has rejected the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers’ attempt to intervene in an appeal challenging a decision affirming the appellant’s inadmissibility to Canada due to his alleged ties to a terrorist organization.
In Talukder v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2025 FCA 132, the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board made the inadmissibility finding based on reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant belonged to an organization engaged in terrorism.
The appellant applied for judicial review of the Immigration Division’s decision. However, the Federal Court dismissed the application. The notice of appeal raised two issues.
First, the Federal Court certified the following issue due to conflicting jurisprudence on the level of the “specific intent” necessary to prove an organization’s intent to engage in terrorism:
To the extent that the court needed to find “specific intent” on the part of an organization to support findings under s. 34(1)(c) and s. 34(1)(f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 2001 (IRPA) that the organization engaged in acts of terrorism, was the legal and analytical approach that the Immigration Division applied in this case reasonable? If not, should the court follow the applicant’s alternative proposal?
The second issue was whether international law, specifically the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, applied to or constrained the interpretation of s. 34(1) of the IRPA broadly, not just ss. 34(1)(d) and 34(1)(a).
The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and the Canadian Council for Refugees moved for leave to intervene in the appeal. The federal minister of public safety and emergency preparedness opposed the requests for intervention.
Intervener status denied
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the motions for intervention of both proposed interveners.
The appeal court noted that the second issue appeared on its face to engage:
- international law, broadly and in detail
- how international law would apply to s. 34(1) of the IRPA
- s. 3 of the IRPA, which rendered some international law and international instruments highly relevant in statutory interpretation and other issues arising under the IRPA
- recent guidance on how international law would apply in cases like the present, as stated in Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Entertainment Software Association, 2022 SCC 30, [2022] 2 S.C.R. 303
“But this appeal will not be an opportunity for the Court to hold an international law colloquium, a roving commission of inquiry, or a graduate seminar into how international law bears upon general issues arising under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,” wrote Justice David Stratas for the appeal court.
The appeal court said this appeal focused on the legal issue of the proper analytical approach for the heightened intent requirement for organizations allegedly engaging in terrorist acts. The appeal court added that only the international legislation addressing the “specific intent” issue was relevant here.
Describing interveners as strangers to the proceedings and as guests at a table already set, the appeal court ruled that the proposed interveners would not be useful to the real and actual issues involved in this appeal.
The appeal court explained that the proposed interveners made submissions that:
- failed to confine themselves to the central legal issue
- duplicated the appellant’s submissions
- were unnecessary and irrelevant to the issue in this case
- were veering into new issues
- significantly overlapped with each other’s submissions
The appeal court noted that this case had complete filings and was ready for hearing. The appeal court held that admitting the proposed interveners would delay the appeal hearing.
The appeal court acknowledged that the proposed interveners were well-represented, public-spirited, and reputable organizations that tried their best to argue why they met the applicable tests and deserved to intervene in this matter. The appeal court said they could assist behind the scenes, presuming the appellant welcomed such guidance.
