A Troubling Shift: Federal Court Decision Undercuts Canada’s Ability to Remove Security Threats

Canada’s immigration and refugee system is built on two pillars: protecting those who face persecution, and protecting Canadians from serious security risks. Unfortunately, the recent Federal Court decision in Ali v. Canada dangerously tilts that balance—and not in favour of Canadians’ safety.

In their compelling National Post commentary, Sophie Milman and Sheryl Saperia highlight a judicial trend that deserves serious alarm. We agree with their assessment: the Court’s ruling represents a significant and troubling barrier to removing individuals with known associations to repressive regimes, extremist organizations, and other security threats.

What the Court Did — and Why It’s a Problem

Rather than upholding Parliament’s clearly defined process for assessing security inadmissibility, the Court has now demanded that immigration officials:

• Prove a “rational link” between past conduct and present danger, and
• Consider non-refoulement concerns before even confirming security inadmissibility

Put plainly, this forces immigration officers to litigate humanitarian arguments before they can even confirm that someone poses a security threat.

This is not merely a technical shift—it fundamentally disrupts a system that was already strained. The staged process worked for a reason: Canada first determined whether someone was inadmissible based on serious past conduct (such as supporting terrorism or authoritarian regimes), and then assessed whether they could safely be removed.

Now, that sequence has been collapsed into a single, convoluted threshold—one that empowers potentially dangerous individuals with a new arsenal of delay tactics and legal leverage.

Past Conduct Matters — and the Court Has Undermined That Principle

The Court’s approach ignores a foundational truth long recognized in immigration and national security law: past actions are the most reliable indicator of future risk.

Parliament expressly wrote the law to reflect this. Yet the Federal Court appears to have substituted its own policy preferences, weakening the very tools designed to protect Canadians.

As Milman and Saperia correctly warn, this ruling effectively signals to individuals tied to oppressive regimes, espionage networks, extremist groups, or foreign interference operations: If you can articulate a claim of risk abroad, you may avoid removal indefinitely.

The potential for abuse is obvious. Those with the most to hide often have the strongest incentives to fabricate persecution claims.

A System Already Struggling Cannot Absorb This Blow

Even before this decision, Canada faced serious challenges removing individuals with credible security flags. As noted in the National Post analysis, of 23 individuals connected to the Iranian regime identified for removal since 2022, only one has actually been deported.

The Ali ruling threatens to grind removal enforcement almost to a halt. Officers already managing overwhelming caseloads are now expected to meet evidentiary standards that are practically—and often operationally—impossible when dealing with hostile foreign governments and covert actors.

This ruling risks demoralizing enforcement officers and incentivizing procedural paralysis. It substitutes abstract judicial theory for the real-world complexities of counter-terrorism, foreign interference, and organized crime.

Humanitarian Obligations Must Be Upheld — But Not Weaponized

Canada must continue to honour its international obligations. No one disputes that we must not return individuals to torture or death.

But humanitarian principles should never become a loophole that shields those who have participated in oppression, violence, or subversion abroad—and who may continue those activities here.

Compassion cannot mean blindness. Judicial interpretations that erode Parliament’s intent and weaken national security safeguards are not compassionate—they are reckless.

A Call for Legislative and Policy Response

Milman and Saperia are right: if courts continue to restrain Canada’s ability to act against clear security threats, Parliament must intervene.

It is time to:

• Reaffirm the legislated sequence for inadmissibility and protection assessments
• Ensure that past participation in oppressive or violent movements remains a sufficient basis for removal
• Provide immigration officers with clear statutory authority to prioritize public safety

Canada should remain a safe haven for the persecuted—not a safe harbour for those who persecute others or undermine democratic societies.

Conclusion

This decision represents a serious setback to the integrity of Canada’s immigration system. It weakens our ability to enforce security-based inadmissibility, emboldens bad-faith actors, and risks eroding public confidence at a time when trust in immigration management is already fragile.

Judicial philosophy cannot override public safety. This ruling must be corrected—through appeal or legislative reform—before vulnerabilities deepen and consequences manifest. We cannot let the Court be captured by woke ideologies.

Protecting Canada is not optional. It is a legal duty and a moral obligation. This ruling is an absolute embarrassment and a failure of common sense.