Zolfagharkhani Vs Canada Case Analysis

541 Words2 Pages

The concept of persecution is not defined in the IRPA. In Canada (Attorney General) v Ward, [1993] 2 SCR 689 at paragraph 63, the Supreme Court defined it as a “sustained or systemic violation of basic human rights demonstrative of a failure of state protection.” In order to constitute persecution, the treatments in question must be serious and repetitive or systematic. In Chan v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1995] 3 SCR 593 at paragraph 71, the Supreme Court further stated the following: “[t]he essential question is whether the persecution alleged by the claimant threatens his or her basic human rights in a fundamental way.” Thus, establishing fear of persecution is central in making a successful claim under section 96(a) of the IRPA.
In Dr. Zelinski’s case, for his criminal conviction to supportive a fear of persecution, it will have to be distinguished from cases of prosecution. The seminal decision on this matter is Zolfagharkhani v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] 3 FC 540 (CA) [Zolfagharkhani]. in Zolfagharkhani the Federal Court states that laws of laws of general application are laws which applies to a country's entire population, without differentiation. Those …show more content…

Zelinski’s claim if he can show that the law is either inherently or for some other reason persecutory in relation to a Convection ground, of any of religion, nationality or membership in a particular social group or political opinion. It will also support his claim “if the punishment or treatment under a law of general application is so Draconian as to be completely disproportionate to the objective of the law, regardless of whether the intent of the punishment or treatment is persecution” (Cheung v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] 2 FC 314 (CA)). Establishing any one of the above rebuts the presumption of validity and neutrality of ‘laws of general application’ advanced in

Open Document