Former Russian citizen was not removed from Canada’s sanction list

The applicant, a former Russian citizen, was unsuccessful in being removed from Canada’s sanction list.  The applicant was then unsuccessful in seeking judicial review of this decision.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Minister of Foreign Affairs – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness

Makarov v. Canada (Minister of Foreign Affairs), [2024] F.C.J. No. 1500, Federal Court, August 7, 2024, H.S. Brown J.

The Applicant, Mr. Makarov, is a former citizen of Russia.  The Applicant was a major gas commodity trader in Russia and former professional cyclist.

The Applicant was on a sanction list pursuant to Schedule I, Part I of the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations, SOR/2014-58 (the “Russia Regulations”). The Russia Regulations were enacted pursuant to the Special Economic Measures Act, SC 1992, c. 17 in response to the Russian Federation’s invasion of Crimea in 2014, and continued after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.  The sanction list initially applied to Russian citizens only and was later expanded to include former Russian citizens.

In August 2023, the Applicant applied to be removed from the sanction list.

In October 2023, the Respondent, Canada (Minister of Foreign Affairs) (the “Minister”) denied the Applicant’s request.  The decision was written and contained reference to a large volume of materials. 

The Applicant applied to the Federal Court for judicial review of the Minister’s decision to keep him on the sanction list. The Attorney General of Canada was also a respondent, in addition to the Minister. 

The Court held the applicable standard of review was reasonableness. The Court held the Minister’s decision was reasonable.

The Court held that: (1) the Minister is entitled to the widest deference in weighing and assessing the record and making this type of decision; (2) the Minister is not bound by the strict rules of evidence; (3) the decision is not one to be tested on criminal or civil standards of proof; and (4) holistically, it meets the test of reasonableness. 

The Court dismissed the application and awarded $12,500 in costs to the Respondents.

This case was digested by Scott J. Marcinkow of Harper Grey LLP and first published in the LexisNexis® Harper Grey Administrative Law Netletter and the Harper Grey Administrative Law Newsletter. If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact him directly at [email protected].