## Facts

- Léon Mugesera, a Rwandan Hutu politician, delivered a public speech in Rwanda on November 22, 1992, to roughly 1,000 party supporters amid escalating ethnic conflict.
- The speech portrayed the Tutsi minority as enemies, used dehumanizing language, and urged violence, including a call interpreted as urging killing and dumping bodies in a river.
- Rwandan authorities issued an arrest warrant for incitement to genocide and murder; Mugesera fled and became a Canadian permanent resident in 1993 with his family.
- Canadian immigration authorities initiated inadmissibility and removal proceedings under the former Immigration Act alleging that the speech constituted:
  - incitement to murder;
  - incitement to genocide and hatred;
  - a crime against humanity (persecution); and
  - material misrepresentation on immigration forms denying involvement in crimes against humanity.
- After a lengthy inquiry and a de novo administrative appeal, the immigration appeal tribunal upheld a deportation order based on all grounds.
- On judicial review, the trial court upheld findings on incitement but set aside the crime-against-humanity finding for lack of a proven link to later killings; the appellate court then reweighed the evidence, rejected key tribunal findings, and set aside the deportation order.

## Issues

1. Whether the appellate reviewing court exceeded its judicial review role by reassessing evidence and substituting its own factual findings for those reasonably open to the administrative tribunal.
2. Whether incitement to genocide (and related incitement) requires proof of a direct causal connection between the speech and subsequent killings.
3. Whether hate speech advocating violence can, by itself and without proof of resulting killings, constitute persecution as a crime against humanity for immigration inadmissibility purposes.
4. Whether the tribunal reasonably found the necessary intent for incitement and crimes against humanity, and material misrepresentation in the immigration process.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously allowed the Minister’s appeal.
- The appellate court had exceeded the limits of judicial review by reweighing the record and overturning factual findings that were reasonably supported.
- The tribunal’s findings that the speech constituted incitement to murder, genocide, and hatred were restored and upheld as reasonable.
- The tribunal’s finding that the speech constituted a crime against humanity in the form of persecution was restored; a causal link to specific killings was not required.
- The tribunal’s finding of material misrepresentation on immigration forms was upheld.
- The deportation order against Mugesera (and consequentially affecting his family’s status in the proceedings) was restored.

## Legal Principles

- On judicial review, courts must show deference to administrative tribunals on factual findings and mixed questions within the tribunal’s role; judicial review is not a fresh appeal on the merits.
- Direct and public incitement to genocide is punishable as incitement regardless of whether genocide actually occurs; immigration inadmissibility based on such incitement does not require proof that the speech caused later atrocities.
- Intent for incitement may be inferred from the speech’s content, the surrounding historical and political context, and the speaker’s influence and position.
- Persecution as a crime against humanity can be committed through discriminatory, severe attacks on fundamental rights; speech advocating extermination or serious violence against a protected group can constitute persecution even without proof of ensuing killings attributable to the speech.
- A false denial of involvement in crimes against humanity on immigration forms can be a material misrepresentation when the underlying conduct is found to meet the relevant international-crime standards applied in immigration law.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated Mugesera’s deportation order, holding that the reviewing appellate court improperly substituted its view of the facts for the tribunal’s, and that a public, direct call for violence against a protected group can support immigration inadmissibility for incitement and for persecution as a crime against humanity without proof that the speech produced specific subsequent killings.


Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 100 (Can. 2005)