A Roma woman holds a baby after she and more than 200 other deportees arrived in Bucharest on two special flights from France on Sept. 14, 2010.Vadim Ghirda
Refugee status doesn't necessarily last forever and, in some cases, refugees can be extradited back to the countries from which they fled, the Supreme Court of Canada said Thursday.
People can be sent back to countries which have reformed and which no longer persecute people on racial, religious or other grounds, it ruled.
The court granted reprieves to a Hungarian couple and a Romanian man from extradition orders against them. But the cases were sent back to Justice Minister Rob Nicholson for reconsideration.
The individuals are of Roma extraction, who fled to Canada and were granted refugee status because of a well-founded fear of persecution in their homelands due to their ethnic origin.
Joszef and Joszefne Nemeth came to Canada in 2001. Tiberiu Gavrila arrived in 2004.
Later, the Hungarian government sought extradition of the Nemeths to face a fraud charge. The Romanians asked that Mr. Gavrila be sent back to serve time on a fraud conviction.
International law generally holds that refugees cannot be sent back to countries where they were persecuted.
But there are exceptions, one involving serious, non-political crimes.
The Quebec Superior Court cleared the way for all three extraditions and the minister ordered the removals, saying the people involved had not shown they were at risk of persecution if they were sent back.
But the Nemeths and Mr. Gavrila appealed, in two separate cases which were heard together at the Supreme Court. They argued they couldn't be extradited unless their refugee status was formally revoked.
The Supreme Court quashed the extraditions, but said they can still be sent back as long as the minister follows the right procedures.
"Under certain conditions, the appellants may be extradited to their country of origin even though their refugee status under Canadian law has not formally ceased or been revoked," Justice Thomas Cromwell wrote in his decision.
"However, my view is that the minister of justice did not apply the correct legal principles when he decided to surrender the applicants for extradition."
For instance, Justice Cromwell wrote, the minister said they had to show they would suffer persecution. That put the onus on the wrong parties.
The justice said refugee status depends on conditions existing at the time the status is granted. Protection from extradition depends on the conditions at the time of extradition.
"The rights flowing from the individual's situation as a refugee are temporal in the sense that they exist while the risk exists, but end when the risk has ended."
The minister looked at the situation in Hungary and Romania at the time the extradition was sought. Both countries have joined the European Union and come under its human-rights rules and conventions. He found little chance of persecution.
"Change of circumstances in a refugee's country of origin may lead to cessation of refugee protection," Justice Cromwell wrote. "In short, protection ceases to apply to persons, who by virtue of a change in circumstances no longer need it."
But, he added, the minister must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the threat of persecution no longer exists.
The cases of all three now go back to be decided by Mr. Nicholson. His decisions can still be appealed.