It determined that refugee claimants had a constitutional right to an oral hearing, by the principles of fundamental justice.

At this time the only way for a foreigner already inside Canada to become a permanent resident was through a claim to convention refugee status, and high numbers of claims led the Department of Employment and Immigration to believe that most were taking advantage of the system to stay and work in Canada.

[2]: 497–498 [3] Professor Julius Grey, the unsuccessful lawyer for the appellant in Kwiatkowsky, later stated that there had been immediate controversy over the Supreme Court's decision in Kwiatkowsky, refugee status being an area of law where life and death were concerned, and the summary removal of refugees could violate Canada's international obligations.

Their claims were made on the basis that they had a "well-founded fear of persecution" in their home countries, and were denied on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration on the advice of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee (RSAC).

[4][5][9] The major questions to the SCC were:[5] On 7 December 1984, the Court invited counsel to make written submissions on the application of the Canadian Bill of Rights to the case.

He noted Wilson's reasons for her broad interpretation of "security of the person" (which would be violated if a refugee was returned to a country where they might be persecuted[4]) and for its stance that administrative convenience cannot come before the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

Accordingly, amnesty was provided to all claimants who had arrived in Canada prior to 21 May 1986, if they did not have a criminal record, were not a security risk, and had passed their medical examinations.

[4] The Plaut Report, which was submitted to the Minister of Employment and Immigration 13 days after the ruling, made recommendations for an equitable refugee determination system including: oral hearings, independent and regional decision-making bodies, and a full appeal process.

These recommendations, along with the realities of the Singh decision, led to the creation of the independent Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) in 1989 with hundreds of new officers hired.

[2]: 496  The decision's application of the Charter and the Bill of Rights reinforced that fundamental justice is an inherent principle in Canadian law and could not be set aside for administrative convenience.