promote, protect and monitor the implementation.^70 It is essential that people with
disabilities and all consumers are involved in this monitoring process.^71 As of yet, the
Canadian government has not designated a monitor. The federal Office for Disability
Issues has been designated as a focal point.
VIII. Enforceability of CRPD Obligations in Canada
While Canada’s ratification of the CRPD demonstrates a clear commitment to the rights
of people with disabilities and binds Canada to comply with the rights in the Convention
under international law, the way in which these obligations will be interpreted in
Canadian courts has yet to be fully understood.
Traditionally, Canada has employed a “dualist” model, meaning that once a treaty has
been signed and ratified by the federal executive it still requires incorporation into
domestic law to be enforceable at the national level.^72 “Canadian courts, like those of
England and other Commonwealth countries, have repeatedly affirmed that a treaty is
not itself a source of domestic law. [In other words], no Canadian treaty is self-
executing. All require legislative implementation if they are to enjoy direct legal effect in
Canadian law.”^73
Unincorporated international conventions can be used as interpretive tools by Canadian
courts, as determined by the Supreme Court of Canada in Baker v Canada.^74 Although
unincorporated Conventions have no direct application in Canadian law, the values
reflected therein can inform the approach to statutory interpretation and judicial review
by Canadian courts.^75
(^70) Ibid.
(^71) Ibid.
(^72) Gib van Ert, “Dubious Dualism: The Reception of International Law in Canada” (2010) 44 Val U L Rev
927; de Mestral & Fox 73 -Decent, supra note 14 at para 48.
74 Ibid.^
Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR 817, 174 DLR (4th) 193
[ 75 Baker].
See also Mugesera v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 39, [2005] 2 SCR
91 [Mugesera].