Authored by Charu Vinayak, Student Member of CILA.
In recent years, immigration law in Ontario has come under increased scrutiny for potential discrimination, particularly in relation to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This section guarantees equality rights and prohibits discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability. However, the intersection of immigration status with these protected grounds has led to complex legal challenges. This article examines three pivotal cases that highlight these issues, offering insights into the evolving legal landscape.
Mehralian v. Dunmore: Discrimination and Foreign Divorces
The case of Mehralian v. Dunmore, 2025 ONSC 649 (CanLII) brought to the forefront the issue of discrimination against individuals with valid foreign divorces. Raha Mehralian, the applicant, argued that the exclusion from seeking spousal support under Ontario’s Family Law Act and the Divorce Act constituted discrimination based on marital status, sex, religion, and immigration status (paras 1-24, 43, 50-53). Mehralian, a recent immigrant and a Muslim woman, faced significant hurdles in proving her claim. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ultimately dismissed the motion, citing insufficient evidence of discriminatory impact (paras 145-156). This decision underscores the challenges faced by marginalized groups in proving discrimination, particularly when the evidence is not robust. The case highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of how immigration status intersects with other grounds of discrimination and the importance of gathering comprehensive evidence to support such claims.
Imperial Oil Limited v. Haseeb: Citizenship and Employment Discrimination
In Imperial Oil Limited v. Haseeb, 2023 ONCA 364 (CanLII), the Ontario Court of Appeal addressed employment discrimination based on citizenship. Imperial Oil had a policy requiring permanent eligibility to work in Canada, which effectively excluded individuals holding Post-Graduate Work Permits (PGWP) (paras 1-15, 34-36, 99-115). The court found this policy discriminatory under the Ontario Human Rights Code, as it unjustly excluded non-citizens who had a legal right to work in Canada (paras 103-115). This ruling is significant as it emphasizes the importance of inclusive employment practices and the legal protections against citizenship-based discrimination. It serves as a reminder to employers to ensure that their hiring policies do not inadvertently discriminate against individuals based on their immigration status. The decision also reinforces the principle that employment opportunities should be accessible to all individuals who are legally permitted to work, regardless of their citizenship status.
Richard v. The Attorney General of Canada: Detention Practices Under Scrutiny
The case of Richard v. The Attorney General of Canada, 2024 ONSC 3800 (CanLII) involved a class action challenging the practice of detaining immigration detainees in provincial prisons. The plaintiffs argued that such detention violated their Charter rights, specifically sections 7, 9, 12, and 15, and constituted negligence (paras 1-15, 42-147). The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that the claims disclosed causes of action under these sections, emphasizing the need for systemic reform in immigration detention practices (paras 14, 195, 217, 234, 262, 294, 433). This case highlights the ongoing challenges in ensuring fair treatment for immigrants, particularly in the context of detention. It underscores the importance of aligning immigration detention practices with human rights standards and the need for transparency and accountability in the treatment of detainees. The decision serves as a call to action for policymakers to address the systemic issues within the immigration detention system and to ensure that the rights of detainees are protected.
Conclusion
These cases collectively illustrate the complexities of addressing discrimination within immigration law. They highlight the need for clear and compelling evidence in discrimination claims, the importance of inclusive policies, and the ongoing challenges in ensuring fair treatment for immigrants. As legal standards, continue to evolve these decisions serve as critical benchmarks for future legal interpretations and policy developments in immigration law. They underscore the importance of vigilance in protecting the rights of immigrants and the need for continued advocacy and reform to address systemic discrimination. As the legal landscape continues to change, these cases will undoubtedly influence future discussions and decisions in the realm of immigration law, shaping a more equitable and just system for all.
References
Imperial Oil Limited v. Haseeb
Richard v. The Attorney General of Canada
Disclaimer: This information is for educational purposes only and not legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for advice tailored to your specific situation.
