Worst Offenders File

Ann Marie McDonald

Posted by on July 09, 2026

Judicial Profile: Federal Court judge whose most controversial ruling declared Canada’s Safe Third Country Agreement regime unconstitutional, triggering major debate over refugee protection, border control, Canada-U.S. relations, Charter rights, and the role of courts in immigration policy.

Note: This profile concerns public controversy over judicial decisions and their consequences. It does not allege judicial misconduct. Criticism is attributed to public officials, legal commentators, civil-liberties organizations, professional regulators, polling, media reports, or affected parties where available.

Overview

Name The Honourable Ann Marie McDonald
Court Federal Court of Canada
Law School University of New Brunswick, Bachelor of Laws, 1993
Date First Appointed September 1, 2015 — appointed judge of the Federal Court of Canada.
Date Appointed to Current Role September 1, 2015 — appointed to her current role as a judge of the Federal Court.
Appointed By Prime Minister: Stephen Harper, Conservative government.

Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada: The Honourable Peter MacKay, who announced the appointment on June 26, 2015.

Appointment context: The appointment came near the end of the Harper government’s final mandate and was part of a group of Federal Court judicial appointments announced by Justice Canada in June 2015.
Previous Legal Career Before her appointment, Ann Marie McDonald was Deputy Managing Partner of McInnes Cooper in Atlantic Canada. Her practice focused primarily on commercial litigation, employment law, administrative law, and regulatory matters. She had previously practised with Allen Dixon Bell in Fredericton from 1995 to 2000, became an associate at McInnes Cooper in 2000, and became a partner in 2002. She was admitted to the Bar of New Brunswick in 1994 and appeared before courts and tribunals in multiple provinces as well as the Federal Court of Appeal.

Summary of Controversy

Justice McDonald’s most controversial ruling was Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), a 2020 Federal Court decision holding that Canada’s Safe Third Country Agreement regime violated section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Safe Third Country Agreement generally requires refugee claimants to seek protection in whichever of Canada or the United States they first entered, and prevents many claimants arriving from the United States at official land ports of entry from having their refugee claims heard in Canada.

The ruling was praised by refugee-rights advocates, who argued that Canada should not return vulnerable asylum seekers to U.S. detention conditions or to the risk of refoulement. Critics argued that the ruling threatened Canada’s ability to manage its land border, treated the United States as unsafe without a sufficiently complete record, and risked transferring major asylum-policy decisions from Parliament and Cabinet to the courts.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside Justice McDonald’s section 7 ruling in 2021. In 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Safe Third Country Agreement regime does not breach section 7 of the Charter, while sending the unresolved section 15 equality-rights claim back to the Federal Court for determination.

Most Controversial Rulings

Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2020 FC 770

Subheadline: A landmark Federal Court ruling that declared Canada’s Safe Third Country Agreement regime unconstitutional and threatened to reshape asylum claims at the Canada-U.S. land border.

Case Summary: The case was brought by refugee claimants and public-interest organizations challenging Canada’s Safe Third Country Agreement regime. The claimants argued that returning refugee claimants to the United States exposed them to detention, harsh detention conditions, and possible refoulement to countries where they feared persecution. Justice McDonald rejected the ultra vires challenge to the regulations, but held that the regime violated section 7 of the Charter because the liberty and security interests of returned claimants were threatened by foreseeable detention-related harms in the United States.

What the Court Decided: Justice McDonald held that section 101(1)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and section 159.3 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, which implement the Safe Third Country Agreement regime, violated section 7 of the Charter and were not justified under section 1. She suspended the declaration of invalidity for six months, giving the federal government time to respond.

Consequences for Victims or Society: This was not a criminal case and did not involve crime victims. Its consequences concerned asylum seekers, border management, refugee protection, Canada-U.S. relations, and the design of Canada’s immigration system. If the ruling had stood, more refugee claimants arriving from the United States at official land ports of entry could have been allowed to make refugee claims in Canada rather than being returned to the United States under the Safe Third Country Agreement.

Why the Ruling Was Controversial: Critics argued that the decision made Canadian refugee policy more complicated and would severely constrain Canada’s ability to share responsibility with the United States for refugee claims. Macdonald-Laurier Institute commentary argued that if Canada was going to declare the United States unsafe for refugee claimants, the court needed stronger reasons, a fuller explanation of the facts, and a less one-sided evidentiary foundation. The federal government appealed, arguing successfully at the Federal Court of Appeal that the July 2020 decision should be set aside.

Public Reaction: Refugee-rights organizations and legal clinics praised the ruling as a landmark victory for asylum seekers. Downtown Legal Services, which represented individual clients in the challenge, said the decision meant that refugees crossing at land points of entry from the United States could not be returned to a system where they risked imprisonment. The federal government, by contrast, welcomed the Federal Court of Appeal’s later decision setting aside the ruling and said the Safe Third Country Agreement had served Canada well by helping maintain a fair, compassionate, and orderly asylum system at the land border.

Counterpoint / Supportive View: Supporters argued that the ruling recognized real harms faced by refugee claimants returned to the United States, including detention, poor detention conditions, and the risk of being sent back to persecution. The Supreme Court of Canada later agreed with some of the Federal Court’s factual findings about risk of detention and some aspects of U.S. detention conditions, even though it ultimately rejected the section 7 constitutional challenge to the legislation itself.

Appeal History: The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the Government of Canada’s appeal in 2021 and set aside the July 2020 Federal Court decision, meaning the Safe Third Country Agreement remained in effect at Canadian and U.S. land ports of entry. In 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the regulations designating the United States as a safe third country do not breach section 7 of the Charter. However, the Supreme Court sent the unresolved section 15 equality-rights claim back to the Federal Court.

Sources