Guilt by association is an insufficient ground on which to deny international refugee protection. This was the finding in Ezokola v. Canada, a landmark case holding that Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention requires a “voluntary, knowing and significant contribution” to a crime or criminal purpose before a refugee claimant can be excluded from protection on the basis of alleged involvement in international crimes. However, the same kinds of underlying acts that were before the Supreme Court of Canada in Ezokola – and are routinely considered under the Article 1F(a) exclusion framework – are also assessed under a second, distinct part of Canada's refugee system called the inadmissibility framework. This article explores the relationship between exclusion and inadmissibility, and demonstrates critical differences in the scope of each framework. We ultimately conclude that Canada's inadmissibility provisions bar asylum seekers from refugee protection on grounds broader than those permitted under Article 1F(a). This renders Canada's refugee claims system fundamentally inconsistent with the Refugee Convention and means that the business started in Ezokola urgently needs to be finished.

No abstract

No abstract