CCLA Disappointed in Federal Court Slepcsik v. Canada Decision

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) is disappointed in last week’s Federal Court decision in Slepcsik v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1840. The Court held that a refugee’s section 7 Charter rights — the right to life, liberty, and security of the person — are not engaged until immediately before an individual is physically removed from Canada.

The CCLA intervened because when the government seeks to revoke a person’s refugee status, fundamental rights should be protected at every stage, not only at the final moment before removal.

This case concerned Mr. Slepcsik, a Canadian refugee whose permanent resident status was stripped after the Refugee Protection Division concluded that he had voluntarily reavailed himself of the protection of his country of nationality. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, such a finding automatically results in the loss of permanent resident status and leads to removal regardless of how long somebody has spent in Canada. Mr. Slepcsik challenged these provisions as unconstitutional.

CCLA argued that in the immigration and refugee context, section 7 must apply throughout the entire cessation and removal process, from the start of cessation proceedings until a person is actually removed from Canada. This position aligns with the Supreme Court’s guidance in Canadian Council for Refugees v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 17.

CCLA is disappointed that the Federal Court rejected this approach, concluding instead that a refugee’s right to life, liberty, and security of the person does not need to be considered during the earlier stages of the process. This leaves individuals exposed at points where life-altering decisions are being made.

You can read the Court’s judgment here and the CCLA’s factum here. We are grateful for the excellent pro bono representation of Jacqueline Swaisland and Warda Shazadi Meighen of Landings LLP.