The Exclusion Clause in Canada: Prioritizing Practical Expediency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Applying the Canadian legal framework for refugees in compliance with binding international instruments has entailed significant challenges. In order to fulfil its dual obligations of protecting people under threat of torture and persecution, while denying refugee status to those responsible for such atrocities, Canada relies on the exclusion clause of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as a practical and expedient solution. This article provides a comprehensive review of the jurisprudence related to Canada’s exclusion system, examining the judicial reasoning of decisions issued by the Immigration and Refugee Board, the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada. The analysis endorses the position that Canada’s continuing prioritization of security trumps humanitarian aims by an overly broad application of article 1F of the Refugee Convention. The interpretation of Canadian judiciary can lead to the improper application of international law, prompting the need for a reassessment of the Canadian exclusion system 70 years after the adoption of the Refugee Convention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".