In her July 22 ruling, federal Judge Ann Marie McDonald said elements of the agreement violated the constitutional guarantee of life, liberty and security and suspended her decision for six months to give authorities time to adjust. Stratas` decision does not refer to the original decision of the Federal Court of Justice that the border agreement is unconstitutional. However, it allows the government to wait for the outcome of its appeal before deciding what to do at the border. The agreement, which allows any country to deport asylum seekers trying to apply for refugees at official border crossings, was declared unconstitutional by the Federal Court of Justice in July. The agreement represented a long-standing desire of the Canadian government to limit the number of people applying for refugees, as potential applicants are much more likely to travel to Canada by land via the United States to assert a right than in the opposite direction. Although the United States initially resisted Canada`s proposal because it meant that it had to deal with more complainants, after 2001, the Bush administration accepted this request in exchange for Canada`s cooperation with other U.S. security priorities. The government said the abolition of the agreement would result in an “inflow” of asylum seekers at the border, making it more difficult for several levels of government to maintain the existing refugee system, including the provision of housing and other social services. “The application is accepted.

The judgment of the Federal Court of Justice is suspended until the final decision of the appeal,” wrote Federal Judge David Stratas. The Canadian Refugee Council strongly opposes this agreement because the United States is not a safe country for all refugees. The CCR also denounces the objective and impact of reducing the number of refugees who can seek refuge in Canada. On August 21, 2020, Bill Blair, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Prevention, issued an official statement that the Government of Canada would appeal. In particular, Mr. Blair cited the following reasons for the Canadian government`s decision to appeal: at the recent hearing before Justice Stratas, lawyers for this group argued that there would be an “increase” in new asylum seekers at the border if the deal was struck down would be “speculative” and “hypothetical”. The government appealed McDonald`s decision and argued that there would be “irreparable harm” to the rule of law and the common good if the border agreement were overturned. McDonald gave the government until the end of January to prepare for the break of the agreement because it understood that it was in the public interest not to terminate the agreement immediately. According to the United States, refugee groups have long fought against the agreement.