Ezokola v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
2013 SCC 40. Intervention before the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention excluding refugee claimants if there are “serious reasons for considering that [they have] committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity.” The Court held there must be serious reasons for considering that the claimant has voluntarily made a significant and knowing contribution to the organization or government’s crime or criminal purpose. Decision makers should not overextend the concept of complicity to capture individuals based on mere association or passive acquiescence. International law and fundamental criminal law principles support the adoption of a contribution‑based test for complicity — one that requires a voluntary, knowing, and significant contribution to the crime or criminal purpose of a group.
Counsel for CARL: Jennifer Bond, Carole Simone Dahan, Aviva Basman and Andrew Brouwer.
Agraira v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
2013 SCC 36. CARL intervened jointly with CCR before the Supreme Court in Agraira v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. CARL and CCR were concerned with the impact that overbroad inadmissibility provisions have on refugees in Canada. CARL Counsel: John Norris and Andrew Brouwer.
R v. Pham
2013 SCC 15. Intervention before the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to consideration of collateral immigration consequences in determining a criminal sentence. The Court held a sentencing judge may exercise his or her discretion to take collateral immigration consequences into account, provided that the sentence ultimately imposed is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The significance of collateral immigration consequences will depend on the facts of the case.
Counsel for CARL: Melinda Gayda and the Honourable Justice Norris, prior to his appointment to the Federal Court.
Government of Canada v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers
2012 SCC 45 (CanLII),  2 SCR 524. CARL was an intervener. The case sets out the test for granting public interest standing: 1) whether there is a serious justiciable issue raised; 2) whether the plaintiff has a real state or a genuine interest in it; and 3) whether, in all the circumstances, the proposed suit is a reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the courts.
Lorne Waldman, Clare Crummey and Tamara Morgenthau represented CARL.