Canada's top Court upholds asylum-seeker pact with U.S. to control flow of refugees

This was the first time the Supreme Court had heard the case. Refugee advocates in the case argued that the agreement violated asylum seekers' rights to life, liberty and security of the person as well as equal treatment under the law under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Canada's Supreme Court on Friday upheld an asylum-seeker pact between Canada and the United States but sent the case back to a lower court to determine whether the contested agreement violates equality rights. The verdict is a partial victory for the Canadian government, keeping the pact in place even as it sets it up for further judicial scrutiny.

Last year, almost 40,000 people crossed into Canada between formal crossings to file refugee claims - the vast majority crossing at Roxham Road in Quebec, at the border with New York state. That influx of people has strained Canada's resources and prompted changes to the agreement. Refugee advocates argue migrant crossings would be more orderly and dispersed without the agreement. Asylum seekers told Reuters they believe Canada has a swifter and more inclusive asylum system than the United States.

Under the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement, which came into effect in 2004, asylum seekers crossing the land border between the two countries are sent back on the grounds they should apply for asylum in the first "safe" country they arrived in. Built-in safety valves such as public policy exemptions that allow some asylum seekers to remain in Canada mean the agreement does not violate asylum seekers' right to life, liberty and security of the person, the Supreme Court ruled. Refugee advocates argue these remedies are not practically available.

The court sent the case back to federal court for a ruling on whether the agreement breaches asylum seekers' right to equal treatment under the law. Refugee advocates argue the agreement violates that right because they say the U.S. is less receptive to refugee claims based on gender.

Refugee advocates told Reuters they were heartened by the equality rights directive but disappointed in the court's decision to keep the agreement in place on the other Charter ground. "This means that the border remains closed and it's not a good day for refugees," said Jamie Chai Yun Liew, who represented a party intervening in the case.

"It means we're in a long waiting game again for further litigation." The U.S. and Canada amended the agreement earlier this year, applying it to the entire length of the border as opposed to only at formal crossings.

Since the amendment, the number of asylum seekers crossing irregularly into Canada has plummeted even as the number of people intercepted crossing in the opposite direction stayed high. Between March 25 and May 28, 618 asylum seekers crossed between ports of entry and were referred to the Canada Border Services Agency, according to agency figures.

The number of people caught crossing into the U.S. spiked in March to 992 from 630 in February and stayed high in April, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol figures show. Twice, Canadian federal courts have struck down the agreement and, twice, appeals courts have upheld it. This was the first time the Supreme Court had heard the case.

Refugee advocates in the case argued that the agreement violated asylum seekers' rights to life, liberty and security of the person as well as equal treatment under the law under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada's federal government defended the agreement, arguing that it is part of the country's administration of its asylum system, that not everyone turned back is detained, that their treatment does not breach rights in a way that "shocks the conscience" and that there are adequate safety valves in place.