A Study on the Legal Trade Cases between Canada and Africa
INTRODUCTION
The term legal is used to define the thing related with law. Develop and maintain security policies, procedures and practices which comply with relevant elements of criminal, civil, administrative and regulatory law to minimize adverse legal consequences. Law can be three type that is Public International Law, Private International Law, Foreign Law.
Public international law is the system of rules and principles governing the relationships between states and international organizations as well some of their persons and Private international law governs relationships between persons and organizations engaged in international transactions and their legal cases whereas Foreign law is a law enacted by a foreign country. We need to know all these cases before doing transaction overseas because all can affect the trade.
This report study is on three legal court cases related with trade between Canada and Africa. These cases include information about the conflicts between companies of both countries and their court case as well as the result of case by court with acts.
LEGAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CANADA AND AFRICA
Canada established its diplomatic relations with South Africa in 1939, due to the outbreak of World War II. Africa and Canada had few contacts before the twentieth century. Canada and Africa were both part of a global trading system, linked by European trading companies such as the Hudson’s Bay Company and the Royal African Company. Canada and African were raw-material exporting areas, they mostly traded with manufacturers in Europe, and not with each other.
Canada is a significant investor in Africa. Trade between the two countries totaled $1.8 billion in 2008. Canadian investments largely focus on the mineral and mining sector, as well as transportation, food processing, hospitality, information and communication technologies. A Memorandum of Understanding on cooperation in mining and mineral development was signed between Canada and South Africa in March 2015. A Double Taxation Agreement has been signed to facilitate trade and investment, between Canada and South Africa. Top Canadian exports to Africa include lentils and wheat, power generation machinery, electrical machinery, sulfur, optical equipment, pharmaceuticals, and pork. Africa’s exports to Canada include citrus, beverages (wine), nuclear machinery parts and minerals such as iron, titanium, chromium and copper.
CASE:1 WHITE SOUTH AFRICAN,S VS CANADIAN GOVERNMENT
TITLE: White South African’s battle for refugee status in Canada ended by appeals court.
In this case, a white South African asked for refugee protection in Canada due to the fear of his Country’s major black, and his case was recalled and the case was rejected, moreover made necessary arrangement for returning to his country, where his cases started as an angry upset and reaction against Canada.
For analysing the case we are following the IRAC method which directly goes deeply to the case between Canada and Africa.
Issue
In 2009, an international protest welcomed Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board and decided Brandon Huntley, a white citizen of South Africa, had an “all around established dread of mistreatment on the bases of his race” and the South Africa government had “lack of interest or failure or unwillingness to shield white South Africans from oppression by African South Africans.”
In this case, a white South African asked for refugee protection in Canada due to the fear of his country’s major black people, but his case was recalled and his case got rejected. The South Africa’s government called the decision as a “perverse” by Ottawa and “racist. The African Social Medias, newspapers who severely criticized the claim made by Mr. Huntley and protest against IRB’s decision.
The IRB Canada take another look into the case and in 2010 Mr. Huntley’s then-lawyer accused Ottawa of interfering to mend international relations. The supreme court of Canada refuse to hear the case in 2012.
Rule
The African National Congress, the party that liberated South Africa from apartheid under Nelson Mandela’s leadership in 1994, said the refugee decision was racist and alarmist.
“Canada’s reasoning for granting Huntley a refugee status can only serve to perpetuate racism,” the ANC said Tuesday.
Stephane Malepart, a spokesman for the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, said the board cannot release the Huntley decision or make any comment on the ruling since all of its cases are heard in private and its tribunals operate at arm’s length from the government. But he said the federal government could seek judicial review of any decision by appealing it to the Federal Court of Canada.
Analysis
His case, however, drew intense publicity. It was reported in newspapers around the world, especially in South Africa. His picture, he said, was featured in newspaper ads on buses in his hometown. Online, he was threatened, he said. If he was not a person in need of protection before, he was now, he claimed in court, a distinction referred to as being a “refugee sur place.”
The IRB acknowledged that South Africa was “a young democracy with ongoing problems,” the court summarized, but remained “a functioning democracy with independent judicial institutions.”
In judging the IRB’s second decision, Federal Court Judge Catherine M. Kane said the reasons given by the IRB were adequate and the decision was a reasonable one to arrive at.
Conclusion
This case adversely affect the relationship between Canada and Africa. There are some legal barriers for refugees from Africa to Canada. The discussion above details a range of problems with the asylum application process that adversely affects the human rights of refugees from various parts of the world. These issues calls into the question of ability DHA to administer an asylum system in accordance with its Constitutional obligation to ensure just administrative action. The problems also make a mockery of the rights guaranteed in both international and domestic refugee law, casting doubt on the Department’s commitment to these legal guarantees.
CASE:2 CANADA VS AFRICA,US
Subject : Subsidies and other Domestic Support for Corn and other Agricultural Products
Complainant: Canada
Respondent: US
Third Party : Argentina; Australia; Chile; European Union; India; Japan; Mexico; New Zealand; Nicaragua; South Africa; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; Turkey; Uruguay
The Canada complained and requested the consultations with the United States regarding three different types of measures on 8 January, 2007:
Firstly, the Canada claims that the subsidies to the US corn industry that are particular for US producers of primarily agricultural products provided by the United States. Canada considered that the issued measures are not compatible with Articles 5(C) and 6.3(C) of the SCM agreement.
Secondly, Canada claims that the United States makes accessible to its exporters premium rates and other conditions more suitable than those which the market would otherwise make them available through export credit guarantee programmes under the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 and other measures such as the GSM-102 programme and SCGP as well as the programmes, legislation, regulations and statutory instruments providing the support. Canada reflects on these programmes provide subsidies contingent upon export performance opposing to Article 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement, and they also breach Articles 3.3, 8, 9.1 and 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
Thirdly, Canada makes demand that, through the improper exclusion of domestic support, the United States supported in favour of domestic producers in excess of the commitment levels mentioned in Section I of Part IV of the Schedule, opposing to Article 3.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
From 18 January 2007, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, the European Communities, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Thailand and Uruguay requested to join the consultations. Afterwards, the United States informed the DSB that they had granted the requests of Argentina, Australia, Brazil, the European Communities, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Thailand and Uruguay to join the consultations.
On 7 June 2007, Canada requested the establishment of a panel. Then, in the meeting the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
On 11 July 2007, Brazil requested consultations with the United States regarding two different categories of US agricultural measures: (i) domestic support for agricultural products and (ii) export credit guarantees for agricultural products.
After 20 July 2007, Canada, Guatemala, Costa Rica and Mexico, the European Communities, Argentina, Australia, India and Nicaragua, Thailand requested to join the consultations. Thereafter, the United States enlightened the DSB that it had approved the requests of Argentina, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, the European Communities, Guatemala, India, Nicaragua, Mexico and Thailand to join the consultations.
Later Canada and Brazil each requested the establishment of a panel. On 15 November 2007, Canada withdrew its first request to establish a panel dated 7 June 2007. But when the meeting held again the DSB postponed the establishment of a panel.
Panel and Appellate Body proceedings
Following to a other request to establish a panel from both Canada and Brazil, the DSB settled a single panel in the meeting on 17 December 2007.Argentina, Australia, Chile, China, the European Communities, India, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, South Africa, Chinese Taipei and Thailand, Turkey and Uruguay reserved their third-party rights.
Conclusion
This case clearly defines that which ever the countries as a third party reserved their rights. But the country Canada who is complaining against US and demanding upon some measures, at last they withdrew their request as they were not gaining any benefits from US.
Countries: South Africa, Canada and Zimbabwe
Appeal considered/heard at: Vancouver, BC
Date of decision: January 2, 2014
Counsel for the person who is the subject of the appeal: Simon Trela (Barrister and Solicitor)
To begin with, the applicant who is the resident of Zimbabwe was the member of a moment of democratic (MDC) changes and she went to south Africa, but as a foreigner, she was sexually assaulted so she applied for Canadian visitor visa on her African passport.
Secondly, after coming to Canada section 97 of the Act, she requested for refugee protection at an immigration office in Edmonton on May 3, 2013. The RPD heard the appellant’s refugee protection claim on June 28 and July 4, 2013. The RPD’s written reasons and Notice of Decision are dated August 19, 2013. Moreover, she was also rejected in south Africa for state protection after her rape, because she was not the citizen of Africa and applicant not have concerned evidence. The RPD Member found the issue of identity to be determinative to findings under both sections 96 and 97(1) of the Act.
Moreover, the appellant’s Record received on September27,2013. The appellant’s submissions in this appeal are primarily based on consideration of the new evidence that was presented and documents submitted as being new evidence of the case. The appellant has requested an oral hearing pursuant to subsection 110(6) of the Act. subsections 110(3), (4), and (6) new evidence has been accepted in support of this appeal. As such, the RAD must proceed without a hearing in this appeal. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Subsection 162(1) The RAD finds that the RPD is to be provided with deference on questions of fact and mixed law and fact in relation to the assessment of the claim for protection.
To put in a nutshell, The RPD Member was referring to several actions by the appellant such as using significant deception in order to be approved for her visa, including having her friends in Canada provide false information in support of her application, having her employer in South Africa falsify an employment record, and providing a false document to establish that she was going to be married in South Africa subsequent to her visit to Canada (thus establishing a motive for her to return to that country as opposed to remaining in Canada illegally).The applicant neither was Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. This appeal is therefore dismissed.
REFERENCES