Learn More

This Supreme Court of Canada case examined the limits of Canada’s immigration detention system. Adrienne Smith served as co-counsel for the intervener, EGALE, arguing that when the Immigration Division cannot consider detention conditions—particularly those affecting a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity—the individual should be permitted to seek relief through habeas corpus.

Read the case here.

This Federal Court case highlights the critical role of the IRB’s Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE) Guidelines in assessing refugee claims based on LGBTQ+ identity. Adrienne Smith, appearing as counsel for the Applicant, argued that the Refugee Appeal Division failed to properly apply these guidelines, which are designed to help decision-makers understand the unique barriers LGBTQ+ claimants face when presenting evidence of their identity.

Ms. Smith emphasized that the Applicant’s inability to provide corroborating documentation about his identity as a gay man must be viewed in the context of his circumstances: he was a religious leader in a country where LGBTQ+ individuals face documented violence, torture, and severe social stigma. As a result, the very conditions that placed him at risk also prevented him from safely expressing or documenting his sexual orientation.

The case underscores the importance of the careful application of the SOGIE Guidelines in ensuring fair refugee determinations.

Read the case here.

In this Federal Court matter, the key issue arose during a family sponsorship appeal involving an applicant who is HIV-positive. Adrienne Smith participated as co-counsel for the intervener, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. The intervener’s submissions highlighted that the Immigration Appeal Division Member’s comments about the applicant’s HIV diagnosis—particularly speculation about how the virus was contracted—reflected and reinforced discriminatory assumptions rather than focusing on the legal questions before the tribunal.

The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network is a national organization dedicated to advancing the rights, health, and dignity of people living with HIV/AIDS. HALCO  (the HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic of Ontario), a community-based legal clinic, provides specialized legal support to individuals living with HIV/AIDS throughout Ontario.

Read the case here.

In this Federal Court proceeding, Adrienne Smith represented the Applicant and challenged the adequacy of his former counsel’s work. She argued that the previous representative had failed to submit any evidence addressing the serious risks the Applicant, as a gay man, would face if returned to Jamaica—an omission that deprived him of a fair process.

The Court agreed, finding that the Applicant had established “special and exceptional circumstances” amounting to a breach of procedural fairness. The Court also recognized that country documentation on Jamaica consistently shows a significant level of danger for LGBTQ individuals, and gay men in particular.

Read the case here.

Adrienne Smith acted as counsel before the Federal Court of Appeal in this matter. Her submissions focused on clarifying the scope of the Refugee Appeal Board’s authority, arguing that the RAD is legally empowered to consider fresh evidence relevant to whether a claimant is excluded from refugee protection under Article 1E of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

She emphasized that exclusion issues often arise from complex factual histories, and limiting the RAD’s ability to review new, credible evidence would undermine the integrity and accuracy of refugee determinations. Ms. Smith argued that allowing the RAD to fully assess such evidence ensures that individuals are not wrongly denied protection on the basis of incomplete or outdated information.

Read the case here.

This Refugee Appeal Division decision addresses how credibility should be evaluated in claims based on sexual orientation. Adrienne Smith represented the Applicants and argued that the Refugee Protection Division ought to begin with a presumption that an individual’s account of their sexual identity is truthful, consistent with the SOGIE Guidelines and established principles of refugee law.

She further submitted that the RPD’s credibility assessment was flawed because it fixated on minor inconsistencies instead of engaging meaningfully with the broader evidence of the Applicants’ sexual orientation. This overly technical approach, she argued, detracted from a fair and context-sensitive evaluation of the claims.

Read the case here.

In this case before the Federal Court, a stay of removal was granted for a non-binary citizen of the United States, pending judicial review of their refused PRRA application.

The Applicant was represented by Sarah Mikhail, who argued that the PRRA Officer erred by relying exclusively on a 2024 country conditions report on the United States—published before the Applicant’s concerns arose regarding the worsening situation for trans and non-binary people following President Trump’s 2025 inauguration. Justice Blackhawk held that the Officer’s dependence on 2024 materials was unreasonable, “given the public’s general awareness of the evolving situation in the US and the changing conditions for certain designated groups in the US.”

In this case before the Supreme Court of Canada, the Appellants argued that Canada’s Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) with the United States functions contrary to rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Adrienne Smith co-represented the intervener, Rainbow Railroad, centering non-refoulement as a principle of fundamental justice which should be safeguarded by the Charter. She emphasized the risk faced by people “refouled” under the STCA (deportation to countries where they face persecution) without Canada ever conducting an individualized assessment of their particular vulnerabilities before returning them to the U.S.

Read the case here.