Skip to main content
September 2017 - April 2019

Second Application for Judicial Review against the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs




Armed Conflict in Yemen

Recipient State

Saudi Arabia

Case Type

Administrative Challenge (Judicial Review)




The second administrative challenge brought in September 2017 sought to challenge the continued implicit refusal of the Minister of Foreign Affairs not to cancel the same 2016 licences for the export of LAVs to Saudi Arabia that were contested in the first judicial review proceedings

This case was initiated after the claimant brought new evidence to the attention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, which indicated that Canadian-manufactured LAVs had been used by Saudi Arabia to commit war crimes in Yemen. After the Minister failed to answer the accompanying request to suspend all approvals granted in 2016, the Claimant submitted an application for judicial review. 

This claim was discontinued in light of the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the application for leave to appeal the previous challenge. 

Proceedings at the Federal Court

The basis of the claim was that the new evidence now satisfied the narrowed assessment of “reasonable risk” accepted by the Court in the previous judicial review proceedings.

The respondent Minister attempted to strike the application down, arguing that the claim had no chance of success as it was reopening the previous challenge, which at the time was still pending before the Court of Appeal.

The Minister’s argument was not accepted by the Federal Court, who concluded that that the new facts and evidence brought by the claimant introduced a “new cause of action” in light of which the reasonableness of the Minister’s decision should be reconsidered.

Claim Discontinued 

Despite this, the claimant discontinued the specific application due to a procedural limitation on the introduction of new facts in an existing claim and following the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the application for leave to appeal in the claimant’s first challenge.


03 Aug 2017

Claimant sends a letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs highlighting new evidence of the use of Canadian arms in the commission of serious IHL violations by Saudi Arabia in Yemen.

27 Sep 2017

Case enters the courts. Absent any response from the Minister, the Claimant submits an application for judicial review at the Federal Court.

18 Oct 2017

Minister response. The Minister submits a request to strike the application down.

09 Jan 2018

Court dismisses minister’s request. The Federal Court conclusion that, based on the new evidence provided, it should reassess the reasonableness of the Minister’s decision at a hearing.

23 Apr 2019

Claim discontinued in light of the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the application for leave to appeal of Challenge 1.


01 June 2022

Canada's arms sales to Saudi Arabia jumped in 2021, government report says

Middle East Eye

This article reflects on new information released by the Canadian government that indicates there has been an increase in military exports to Saudi Arabia, who are also found to be Canada’s second largest purchaser of military equipment after the United States.

30 April 2018

Canada’s dual role in Yemen: Arms exports to Saudi Coalition dwarf aid sent to war-torn country

Brendan Kennedy and Michelle Shephard | Toronto Star

This article considers the broader context of arms sales by Canada to countries involved in the conflict in Yemen, in particular Saudi Arabia, by analysing its export statistics and reporting.

19 January 2018

Comment: Canada's Trade-off between Arms and Human Rights

James Hendry | Philippe Kirsch Institute Global Justice Journal

This article provides a comprehensive and detailed overview of the first two challenges launched by Professor Daniel Turp in 2016 and 2018 respectively, with particular focus on the evidence which came to light between the first and second challenge.

Contact the Claimants

This claim was brought by Professor Daniel Turp of the University of Montreal. The claimant was represented by Maître André Lespérance and Maître Anne-Julie Asselin of the firm Trudel Johnston & Lespérance.

If you would like to know more about this case, please get in touch with our primary contact Professor Daniel Turp by email.