Mr. Bent is a permanent resident of Canada and a Jamaican citizen. After a criminal matter, the Canada Border Services Agency referred him to an inadmissibility hearing under section 36(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Immigration Division found him inadmissible.
Mr. Bent and the Black Legal Action Centre filed a joint application for judicial review. They argued that sections 36(1) and 44(2) of IRPA violate section 15 of the Charter because they fail to require decision-makers to consider the role of systemic anti-Black racism that often shapes a person’s contact with the criminal system before it shapes their immigration status.
The federal government brought a motion to strike BLAC as an applicant, arguing BLAC was not “directly affected” and could not name itself as a public interest applicant without first asking the Court’s permission.
On December 20, 2024, Justice Aylen of the Federal Court dismissed the government’s motion. She held that BLAC was entitled to assert public interest standing by naming itself in the notice of application. The question of whether BLAC ultimately has standing will be decided by the judge hearing the merits.
BLAC counsel: Prasanna Balasundaram, Nicole Guthrie. Mr. Bent represented by Andrew Brouwer (Refugee Law Office, Legal Aid Ontario).
This procedural ruling matters for two reasons.
First, it keeps the Charter challenge alive. The underlying case asks whether immigration inadmissibility decisions must account for systemic anti-Black racism. That question now moves forward to a hearing on the merits.
Second, the ruling protects public interest litigation more broadly. Specialty clinics like BLAC can assert standing in their notices of application and have that question decided at the merits stage, rather than being knocked out by a preliminary motion. This is critical access-to-justice infrastructure for community organizations that represent groups that are otherwise underrepresented in court.
Why this decision matters for Black communitiesBent is part of the post-Morris line refining how IRCAs are used in practice. It addresses what happens when a sentencing judge accepts the IRCA in principle but fails to engage with it meaningfully in the reasons.
What the Court got rightThe Court reinforced that an IRCA is not a procedural box. Sentencing judges must show in their reasons how the systemic and background factors actually shaped the sentence chosen. A reference to the report without engagement is reviewable error.
Gaps and cautionsThe remedy on appeal is narrow. Even where engagement is found inadequate, appellate courts may decline to interfere if the sentence is otherwise within range. Counsel should build the IRCA argument at trial so the record on appeal is complete.
Practical takeawayAsk the sentencing judge to address the IRCA point by point on the record. Where the judge does not, preserve the issue clearly for appeal. Bent gives you the standard of engagement to argue against.
Case comments reflect the views of Black Legal Action Centre and do not constitute legal advice. For advice on a specific matter, contact BLAC or a qualified legal service provider.
Black Justice Hub provides legal information, not legal advice. For advice about your specific situation, contact the Black Legal Action Centre or a lawyer. If you cannot afford a lawyer, you may qualify for help from Legal Aid Ontario.
Ms. Kanyinda is a refugee claimant from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. She applied for Quebec’s reduced-contribution daycare program so she could look for work and support her three children. The province refused, relying on section 3 of the Reduced Contribution Regulation, which excluded refugee claimants who did not yet hold a work permit.
Ms. Kanyinda challenged the rule under section 15 of the Charter. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with her. On March 6, 2026, the Court found the regulation discriminated against refugee-claimant women on the combined grounds of sex and immigration status.
The Court applied an intersectional analysis: the rule did not affect all refugee claimants equally. It hit women hardest because women carry most of the unpaid childcare. The remedy expanded eligibility to include refugee claimants.
Mr. Morris, a young Black man from Toronto, was convicted of possessing a loaded firearm. At sentencing, his lawyer filed a cultural assessment and expert evidence on anti-Black racism, poverty, and over-policing in his community.
The trial judge took these factors into account and imposed a 12-month sentence. The Crown appealed, arguing the sentence was too low.
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the approach but adjusted the sentence to 15 months. More importantly, the Court set out three holdings that have shaped sentencing across the country.
First, judges may take judicial notice of anti-Black racism in Canada without requiring proof in every case. Second, an offender does not have to prove a direct causal link between systemic racism and the offence. Third, evidence of systemic racism goes to the offender’s moral culpability, not to the seriousness of the offence itself.
Mr. Burke-Whittaker, a young Black man, pleaded guilty to possessing a loaded prohibited firearm. The sentencing judge gave him a two-year-less-a-day conditional sentence served in the community, plus three years of probation. The Crown appealed, asking the appeal court to send him to prison instead.
The case reached the Supreme Court of Canada on the question of what should happen when a Crown sentence appeal succeeds: is reincarceration automatic, or does the court have discretion?
The Black Legal Action Centre intervened. BLAC argued that reincarcerating a person who has complied with their community sentence is never automatic. Courts must apply proportionality, restraint, and the sentencing principles in section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, including the overrepresentation of Black people in custody and the impact of anti-Black racism.
BLAC counsel: Jean-Simon Schoenholz, Nadine Tawdy, Shanika Gordon, Demar Hewitt
Ms. Kanyinda is a refugee claimant from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. She applied for Quebec’s reduced-contribution daycare program so she could look for work and support her three children. The province refused, relying on section 3 of the Reduced Contribution Regulation, which excluded refugee claimants who did not yet hold a work permit.
Ms. Kanyinda challenged the rule under section 15 of the Charter. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with her. On March 6, 2026, the Court found the regulation discriminated against refugee-claimant women on the combined grounds of sex and immigration status.
The Court applied an intersectional analysis: the rule did not affect all refugee claimants equally. It hit women hardest because women carry most of the unpaid childcare. The remedy expanded eligibility to include refugee claimants.
Mr. Dorsey is a federal inmate. He applied to Correctional Service Canada to be transferred from a medium-security to a minimum-security institution. CSC refused. He brought a habeas corpus application in provincial superior court, asking a judge to review whether his continued confinement at the higher security level was lawful.
The lower courts said habeas corpus was not available because Mr. Dorsey had no pre-existing right to be at minimum security. The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed.
By a 6–3 majority, Justice Moreau held that habeas corpus is available to challenge a CSC refusal to reclassify an inmate’s security level. The remedy does not require the prisoner to first prove an entitlement to a lower classification. What matters is whether the deprivation of residual liberty inside the prison is lawful.
A legal resource for counsel representing Black people who are incarcerated. It covers anti-Black racism in Canadian prisons, the failures of the prison grievance system, and concrete strategies including Charter challenges, human rights complaints, and post-sentencing advocacy.
A guide for defence counsel on addressing anti-Black racism at sentencing. It explains why Canada has no Gladue-equivalent for Black accused persons, how to use Impact of Race and Culture Assessments (IRCAs), and includes a factum template and sample sentencing submissions.
A fill-in-the-blank legal template for bringing a Charter motion challenging unconstitutional prison conditions, including segregation, denial of care, and racial discrimination in custody. The document also includes a sample Canadian Human Rights Tribunal application and a directory of prison advocacy organizations across Canada.
A fill-in-the-blank legal template for bringing a Charter motion challenging unconstitutional prison conditions, including segregation, denial of care, and racial discrimination in custody. The document also includes a sample Canadian Human Rights Tribunal application and a directory of prison advocacy organizations across Canada.
A structured framework for preparing Cultural Impact Assessments (CIAs) in criminal sentencing proceedings. It guides lawyers, social workers, and cultural consultants through documenting how systemic racism has shaped a Black accused person’s life, for use in court to support fair and proportionate sentences.
