Bill 21 brings Chief Justice Richard Wagner to the decision of a lifetime [citizenship]

2026/07/20 Leave a comment

Good long read on Justice Wagner, including the discussion of the Vavilov case where I understand the issue of coherence in rulings of administrative tribunals. On the other hand, the Court completely missed the substantive citizenship issue, that foreign officials did not benefit from their children being granted Canadian citizenship if born in Canada. That they were not “official” diplomats but undercover spies, and the resulting “loophole,” failed a basic common sense test:

…The Chief Justice’s most important ruling will sound a bit boring: a 2019 judgment called Vavilov that resolved a legal debate in administrative law. This is a mostly unseen but omnipresent part of the legal system, where the courts assess government decision-making and citizens can seek review of rulings from tribunals such as the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 

Until the Vavilov ruling, how judges reviewed such decisions was a mess. There was little coherence and a lot of wasted court time.

Chief Justice Wagner sought to solve the problem. The Supreme Court took on three similar appeals, invited interveners to join in and, unusually, solicited outside legal help. 

The central case was that of Alexander Vavilov, born in Toronto in 1994. His parents were Russian spies, the inspiration for the television show The Americans. After the FBI arrested the spies in 2010 near Boston, Mr. Vavilov applied to renew his Canadian passport. In 2014, the federal Registrar of Canadian Citizenship cancelled his certificate of citizenship.

The registrar’s reading of federal regulations, and the Citizenship Act, determined Mr. Vavilov should not have been granted Canadian citizenship at birth because his parents had been employees of a foreign government.

Mr. Vavilov won at the Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision. Chief Justice Wagner, the lead author, ruled that the registrar’s conclusion was unreasonable. The larger legal breakthrough: the judgment clarified how courts should review administrative decisions writ large. …

Source: Bill 21 brings Chief Justice Richard Wagner to the decision of a lifetime

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with ,

Supreme Court judge [Justice Wagner] says Canadians shouldn’t worry about arrival of refugees, migrants 

2017/03/11 Leave a comment

Thoughtful and pertinent comments, particularly interesting his comments on identity:

Wagner said the notions of identity, human dignity and democratic values permeate the Charter and “lay the foundations for looking beyond our own borders.

“We can welcome refugees and migrants with the confidence that our society is able not only to manage our differences, but to thrive on them,” said Wagner.

Speaking to reporters later, Wagner acknowledged that, while his speech was delivered to a legal and academic audience, there was a message for Canadians concerned about the influx of refugees and migrants.

“We should, I think, welcome all those people and we should be willing to accommodate them and not change them,” he said.

“People should not be afraid of having migrants and refugees in their own countries. I think we’re strong enough and . . . we have strong moral values, and one of those values is the respect for human dignity. And, if we take our role seriously, we’ll look, we’ll adopt the perspective of the other, and it could only, I think, as far as I’m concerned, grow society much better in the future.”

Asked if that means there should be room for face veils and other individual expressions of religious identity, Wagner declined to answer, saying: “I don’t know if those cases will come before the court, so I don’t want to comment.”

Wagner holds one of the three high court seats reserved for Quebec. Quebec’s legislature is now studying a bill to require “religious neutrality” of those who deliver or receive public services, amid calls to ditch the bill in the wake of the slaying of six Muslims at a Quebec City mosque.

Wagner said judges have an “obligation” to try to understand the perspective of a person who says their equality rights are breached, but he added “that doesn’t mean that the claimant is right . . . that doesn’t mean that I would adopt his way, or his reasoning, or his opinion, or his end result.”

In his speech, Wagner admitted early approaches to how judges analyzed discrimination did not stand up to the task. He said Charter interpretation is still “a work in progress,” but, he added, over the past 150 years “the constitution has enabled us to navigate difficult questions of identity.

“Personal and group characteristics are the starting point of Charter equality jurisprudence, but identity is not about labels; it is a shorthand for how people see themselves, how others see them, and how those two things interact in people’s lives.”

Wagner said the Supreme Court looks to the context and experiences of a person claiming discrimination, and seeks to understand the person’s perspective, which is an especially important consideration in cases of aboriginal law or where there are overlapping characteristics of a person’s identity that influence how they experience discrimination.

Wagner said the experience of a woman who is part of a visible minority can be totally different from that of a young man who has the same characteristics. “If one of the two is not a citizen, or has a different sexual orientation, their experience could be even more different.”

“When the court eventually faces a question touching on trans-gender identity, these two propositions will provide essential frames of reference: that identity is not fixed, but changing, and that identity is not innate, but contextual,” he said.

Wagner predicted that, although the principle of “dignity” fell out of favour in judicial analyses of equality claims, it would find new traction in future Charter litigation. It is a crucial consideration when judges weigh whether a rights violation is reasonable and justified. “Equality infringements ought to be increasingly difficult to justify to the extent that it strikes at the heart of someone’s individual or group identity and, with it, their recognition as full participants in Canada’s ongoing democratic dialogue,” he said.

University of Ottawa law professor Errol Mendes said Wagner’s speech would please equality-seeking groups on the one hand, but he said Wagner also emphasized “democratic values” and “substantive” equality over any superficial concept of equality.

To Mendes, it was a signal from a judge who some suggest could one day become the chief justice of Canada, that the balance won’t always tip in favour of those who feel their rights are breached.

Source: Supreme Court judge says Canadians shouldn’t worry about arrival of refugees, migrants | Toronto Star

Filed under Government, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,