¹ Indian Act, RSC 1985, c I-5; Agreement between Canada and the Government of the People’s Republic of China for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, 9 September 2012, Can TS 2014 No 26; Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73; Rio Tinto Alcan Inc v Carrier Sekami Tribal Council, 2010 SCC 43.

² Hupacasath First Nation v Canada (Foreign Affairs), 2013 FC 900 at para 147.

³ Hupacasath First Nation v Canada (Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada), 2015 FCA 4 at para 34 [Hupacasath], citing Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service, [1985] 1 AC 374 (HL).

⁴ RSC 1985, c F-7.

⁵ (2001), 54 OR (3d) 215 (CA).

⁶ Hupacasath, supra note 3 at paras 50–51.

⁷ Ibid at paras 52–53, citing Canada (Human Rights Commission) v Canadian Liberty Net, [1998] 1 SCR 626 at paras 32, 34.

⁸ Hupacasath, supra note 3 at para 56.

⁹ Ibid at para 62.

¹⁰ Ibid at para 66.

¹¹ [1989] 1 All ER 655 at 690 (CA).

¹² Hupacasath, supra note 3 at para 68.

¹³ Ibid at paras 69–70.

¹⁴ Ibid at para 100.

¹⁵ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter].

¹⁶ SS 2008, c P-42.2.

¹⁷ Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan, 2015 SCC 4 at para 3 [Saskatchewan Federation].

¹⁸ Ibid at para 4; see also para 25.

¹⁹ National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat 449, 29 USC §§ 151–69 (1935) [Wagner Act]; Saskatchewan Federation, supra note 17 at paras 34–51.

²⁰ Ibid at paras 62, 65.

²¹ International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966, 993 UNTS 3, Can TS 1976 No 46, art 8(1) [ICESCR]; Charter of the Organization of American States, 30 April 1948, 119 UNTS 3, Can TS 1990 No 23, art 45(c) [OAS Charter].

²² Convention no 87 Concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, 9 July 1948, 68 UNTS 17, Can TS 1973 No 14 [Convention no. 87]; Saskatchewan Federation, supra note 17 at para 67.

²³ Saskatchewan Federation, supra note 17 at para 69.

²⁴ Ibid at para 71.

²⁵ European Social Charter, 18 October 1961, 529 UNTS 90; European Social Charter (Revised), 3 May 1996, 2151 UNTS 277; Saskatchewan Federation, supra note 17 at paras 71–75.

²⁶ Reference re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta), [1987] 1 SCR 313; Saskatchewan Federation, supra note 17 at para 64.

²⁷ R v Hape, 2007 SCC 26 at para 55 [Hape]; Divito v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 47 at para 23 [Divito].

²⁸ Saskatchewan Federation, supra note 17 at para 78.

²⁹ Ibid at para 86.

³⁰ Ibid at para 92.

³¹ Ibid at para 150.

³² Ibid at paras 152–53.

³³ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171, Can TS 1976 No 47, art 22 [ICCPR]; Saskatchewan Federation, supra note 17 at para 154, citing JB v Canada, Comm no 118/1982 (1986), reprinted in Selected Decisions of the Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol, UN Doc CCPR/C/OP/2, vol 2 (New York: United Nations, 1990) 34, online: OHCHR <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/SelDec_2_en.pdf>.

³⁴ ICESCR, supra note 21; Saskatchewan Federation, supra note 17 at para 155.

³⁵ Saskatchewan Federation, supra note 17 at para 157 (emphasis in original).

³⁶ Ibid at para 158.

³⁷ Ibid at para 159, citing Turp v Canada (Justice), 2012 FC 893.

³⁸ RSBC 1996, c 244.

³⁹ United Mexican States v British Columbia (Labour Relations Board), 2015 BCCA 32 at paras 8–10 [United Mexican States].

⁴⁰ State Immunity Act, RSC 1985, c S-18, s 3(1): “Except as provided by this Act, a foreign state is immune from the jurisdiction of any court in Canada.”

⁴¹ 24 April 1963, 596 UNTS 261, Can TS 1974 No 25.

⁴² United Mexican States, supra note 39 at paras 11–16.

⁴³ Ibid at para 20.

⁴⁴ Ibid at para 35.

⁴⁵ Belhaj v Straw, [2014] EWCA Civ 1394 [Belhaj].

⁴⁶ United Mexican States, supra note 39 at para 5.

⁴⁷ Belhaj, supra note 45 at para 48, quoted in United Mexican States, supra note 39 at para 47.

⁴⁸ United Mexican States, supra note 39 at para 50.

⁴⁹ 2014 FCA 21.

⁵⁰ [1990] 1 FC 74 (TD), aff’d [1990] 1 FC 90 (CA).

⁵¹ Gitxaala Nation v R, 2015 FCA 73 at paras 11–12 [Gitxaala Nation].

⁵² Ibid at paras 16–17.

⁵³ In the twenty-first century, the Supreme Court of Canada’s application or approbation of the presumption of conformity has been an almost annual phenomenon. See B010 v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 58 at para 48 [B010]: “In keeping with the international context in which Canadian legislation is enacted, this Court has repeatedly endorsed and applied the interpretive presumption that legislation conforms with the state’s international obligations … This interpretive presumption is not peculiar to Canada. It is a feature of legal interpretation around the world”; Saskatchewan Federation, supra note 17 at para 64; Thibodeau v Air Canada, 2014 SCC 67 at para 113; Divito, supra note 27 at para 23; Merck Frosst Canada Ltd v Canada (Health), 2012 SCC 3 at para 117: “I accept, of course, that to the extent possible domestic legislation should be interpreted so that it is consistent with Canada’s international obligations”; Németh v Canada (Justice), 2010 SCC 56 at para 34: “I also accept, of course, that, where possible, statutes should be interpreted in a way which makes their provisions consistent with Canada’s international treaty obligations and principles of international law … [I]t is presumed that the legislature acts in compliance with Canada’s obligations as a signatory of international treaties and as a member of the international community as well as in conformity with the values and principles of customary and conventional international law”; United States of America v Anekwu, 2009 SCC 41 at para 25; Health Services and Support — Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn v British Columbia, 2007 SCC 27 at para 70; Hape, supra note 27 at paras 53–54 (the most lengthy and significant consideration of the presumption in Canadian law); GreCon Dimter Inc v JR Normand Inc, 2005 SCC 46 at para 39: “The interpretation of the provisions in issue, and the resolution of the conflict between them, must necessarily be harmonized with the international commitments of Canada and Quebec”; Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 4 at para 31; 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d’arrosage) v Hudson (Town), 2001 SCC 40 at para 30 (approving Ruth Sullivan, Driedger on the Construction of Statutes, 3rd ed (Toronto: Butterworths, 1994), to the effect that “the values and principles enshrined in international law … constitute a part of the legal context in which legislation is enacted and read. In so far as possible, therefore, interpretations that reflect these values and principles are preferred”).

⁵⁴ National Corn Growers Assn v Canada (Import Tribunal), [1990] 2 SCR 1324 at 1371 [National Corn Growers]. See also Crown Forestries Ltd. v Canada, [1995] 2 SCR 802 at para 44.

⁵⁵ Gitxaala, supra note 51 at para 18.

⁵⁶ Jutta Brunnée & Stephen Toope, “A Hesitant Embrace: The Application of International Law by Canadian Courts” [2003] Can YB Int’l L 3.

⁵⁷ [1999] 2 SCR 817 [Baker].

⁵⁸ Gitxaala Nation, supra note 51 at para 25.

⁵⁹ Ibid at para 27.

⁶⁰ 2012 SCC 12.

⁶¹ ICCPR, supra note 33, art 18(4); Loyola High School v Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12 at para 65 [Loyola High School].

⁶² Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res 217 A (III), reprinted in UN GAOR, 3d Sess, Part 1, UN Doc A/810 (1948), at 71–77, art 18; Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 221, art 9; Loyola High School, supra note 61 at paras 96–97.

⁶³ Henry v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 24 at para 133 [Henry].

⁶⁴ ICCPR, supra note 33, art 14(6), quoted in Henry, supra note 63 at para 135.

⁶⁵ Henry, supra note 63 at para 136.

⁶⁶ Ibid at para 137.

⁶⁷ Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c C-29, s 3(2)(a).

⁶⁸ Budlakoti v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FCA 139 at para 22 [Budlakoti], citing Pavicevic v Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FC 997.

⁶⁹ 30 August 1961, 989 UNTS 175, Can TS 1978 No 32, art 1.

⁷⁰ Budlakoti, supra note 68 at para 23.

⁷¹ Ibid at paras 46–52.

⁷² Ibid at para 54, citing Baker, supra note 57.

⁷³ Budlakoti, supra note 68 at paras 70–73.

⁷⁴ Canadian Planning and Design Consultants Inc v Libya, 2015 ONCA 661 at para 24 [Canadian Planning].

⁷⁵ 18 April 1961, 500 UNTS 95, Can TS 1966 No 29.

⁷⁶ Canadian Planning, supra note 74 at paras 71, 75.

⁷⁷ SC 2001, c 27, s 37(1) [IRPA].

⁷⁸ B010, supra note 53 at paras 22–26.

⁷⁹ Ibid at paras 30–35.

⁸⁰ RSC 1985, c C-46, s 467.1(1).

⁸¹ 15 November 2000, 2225 UNTS 209 [Palermo Convention].

⁸² B010, supra note 53 at paras 36–46.

⁸³ B010, supra note 53 at paras 47–50.

⁸⁴ Ibid at para 51.

⁸⁵ Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, 15 November 2000, 2241 UNTS 507; Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, 15 November 2000, 2237 UNTS 319, Can TS 2002 No 25; B010, supra note 53 at para 51.

⁸⁶ B010, supra note 53 at paras 52–56.

⁸⁷ Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 137, Can TS 1969 No 6. See also Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 31 January 1967, 606 UNTS 267, Can TS 1969 No 29.

⁸⁸ B010, supra note 53 at paras 57–59.

⁸⁹ Ibid at para 66; see also paras 60–65.

⁹⁰ Ibid at para 68.

⁹¹ Ibid at para 72.

⁹² IRPA, supra note 77, s 117.

⁹³ R v Appulonappa, 2015 SCC 59 at para 26 [Appulonappa], quoting Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford, 2013 SCC 72 at para 101.

⁹⁴ See text summarizing B010, supra note 53.

⁹⁵ Appulonappa, supra note 93 at para 34.

⁹⁶ Ibid at para 40.

⁹⁷ Ibid at para 43.

⁹⁸ Ibid at para 44.

⁹⁹ Ibid at para 45.

¹⁰⁰ Ibid at para 70.

¹⁰¹ Ibid at para 72.

¹⁰² Ibid at para 74, quoting R v Anderson, 2014 SCC 41 at para 17.

¹⁰³ Appulonappa, supra note 93 at paras 79–82.

¹⁰⁴ Ibid at paras 79–85.