This review examines the Canadian sanctions designation of Anatoly Borisovich Chubais, with particular focus on the legal basis for his inclusion in Schedule 1 of the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations and the statutory framework governing a possible removal from the sanctions schedule.
Chubais was added to Canada’s sanctions regime on 13 June 2025 pursuant to paragraphs 2(b) and 2(c) of the Russia Regulations. The relevant statutory framework permits the Government of Canada to list a person where the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicable statutory criteria are met. Those criteria include being a former or current senior official of the Government of Russia and being an associate of a person falling within the specified categories.
The legal question is therefore not limited to Chubais’s historical governmental position. The more important question for a continuing sanctions assessment is whether the statutory basis for maintaining the designation remains applicable to the individual on the information available at the relevant time.
Canadian law expressly provides a statutory mechanism through which a designated person may apply to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to have their name removed from the relevant sanctions schedule. The Minister must determine whether there are reasonable grounds to recommend removal to the Governor in Council. This mechanism forms part of the architecture of Canada’s sanctions regime and is distinct from judicial review.
On the public record reviewed for this assessment, the designation is clearly identifiable as a legally effective Canadian sanctions measure. At the same time, the public record does not by itself disclose the complete evidentiary record relied upon by the Canadian authorities in making or maintaining the designation.
Accordingly, this review does not purport to determine whether the original designation was lawful or unlawful. Rather, it identifies the principal legal issue that would arise in any statutory delisting assessment: whether the factual and legal nexus supporting the designation continues to justify the person’s inclusion in Schedule 1 at the time of review.
Where the continuing nexus to the statutory criteria is no longer established, Canada’s own regulatory framework provides a lawful mechanism for removal from the sanctions schedule.
The subject of this review is:
The review concerns specifically his designation under Canada’s autonomous sanctions regime relating to Russia.
The review does not constitute a judicial opinion, legal representation of the designated person, or determination by a Canadian court. It is an independent legal and regulatory assessment based on publicly available materials.
Canada administers autonomous sanctions under several statutory regimes, including the Special Economic Measures Act.
The Russia-specific regime is implemented through the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations.
The Regulations establish:
The framework therefore contains both a designation mechanism and a delisting mechanism.
This distinction is legally important. A sanctions regime is not structured solely around the initial act of designation; it also contains a mechanism for assessing whether continued inclusion on the list remains justified.
Section 2 of the Russia Regulations provides the legal criteria governing inclusion in Schedule 1.
As relevant to this review, the Regulations identify persons whom the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe are:
Chubais was designated pursuant to paragraphs 2(b) and 2(c).
The legal character of these provisions should be kept distinct from political commentary concerning the individual.
The relevant statutory inquiry is whether the regulatory criteria are satisfied on the information available to the Canadian authorities.
On 13 June 2025, Canada amended the Russia Regulations and added Chubais to Schedule 1, Part 1.
The Canadian regulatory instrument identifies the designation as having been made pursuant to paragraphs 2(b) and 2(c).
The designation therefore has a clear formal legal basis within the Canadian regulatory framework.
This review does not question the fact of designation.
The relevant issue for a continuing assessment is whether the factual circumstances underlying the designation continue to correspond to the statutory criteria.
Chubais is a former senior Russian governmental official and held a number of prominent public positions during his career.
His historical governmental status is relevant to paragraph 2(b) of the Russia Regulations.
However, the legal significance of historical status should be distinguished from the question of whether continued sanctions remain justified at a later point in time.
The fact that a person once occupied a senior governmental position may establish the factual basis for a designation at a particular point in time. It does not necessarily answer every question concerning the continuing application of sanctions indefinitely.
The distinction becomes particularly relevant where a person’s governmental role has ended and the assessment concerns the continuing nexus between the individual and the purposes of the sanctions regime.
Paragraph 2(c) establishes a separate statutory category concerning association with persons falling within the relevant provisions of section 2.
Because the public designation record does not disclose the complete evidentiary record considered by the Canadian authorities, an independent reviewer cannot reconstruct the entire basis upon which paragraph 2(c) was applied.
For that reason, conclusions concerning the underlying factual association should not be stated beyond what is supported by the public record.
A proper delisting analysis would ordinarily examine:
This is particularly relevant to any assessment of a continuing nexus.
The central legal issue identified by this review is the continuing nexus between the designated person and the statutory criteria.
Sanctions are imposed within a statutory framework designed to address specified foreign-policy and international-security objectives.
Accordingly, a continuing sanctions assessment should distinguish between:
and
The existence of a historical connection does not, by itself, disclose the complete legal position at a later date.
The appropriate question is whether the relevant statutory criteria continue to be supported by the circumstances and evidence available to the decision-maker.
Inclusion in Schedule 1 produces significant legal consequences.
Section 3 of the Russia Regulations prohibits persons in Canada and Canadians outside Canada from, among other things:
The designation therefore has practical consequences extending beyond a person’s formal appearance on a sanctions list.
It may affect banking relationships, financial transactions, contractual arrangements, compliance assessments, asset management and international business relationships.
The legal consequences make accurate maintenance of sanctions lists particularly important.
The Russia Regulations expressly provide a mechanism for removal from the sanctions schedule.
Section 8(1) provides that a person may apply in writing to the Minister to have their name removed from Schedule 1, Schedule 2 or Schedule 3.
Section 8(2) provides that, upon receipt of such an application, the Minister must determine whether there are reasonable grounds to recommend removal to the Governor in Council.
The mechanism is therefore more precisely characterised as a:
or:
It should not be described simply as an ordinary judicial appeal.
A delisting application is not necessarily an allegation that the original designation was unlawful.
The statutory question is whether there are reasonable grounds to recommend removal from the relevant Schedule.
This distinction is important.
A subsequent decision to remove a person from a sanctions list does not, without an express governmental or judicial finding, establish that the original designation was:
A later delisting may instead reflect subsequent developments, changed circumstances, new evidence, a reassessment of the continuing nexus, or a conclusion that continued designation is no longer supported by the applicable legal framework.
The Regulations also contemplate further applications where there has been a material change in circumstances since a previous application.
A material change may potentially arise from developments including:
Material change should not, however, be treated as the only conceptual basis for analysing a first delisting application.
The statutory mechanism is designed to allow the competent Canadian authorities to consider whether removal from the Schedule should be recommended on the information before them.
A statutory delisting application should be distinguished from judicial review before a Canadian court.
A delisting application asks the competent administrative authorities to consider whether removal from the sanctions schedule should be recommended under the applicable regulations.
Judicial review, by contrast, concerns the legality of governmental decision-making and is governed by separate principles of Canadian administrative law.
The two mechanisms should therefore not be conflated.
For purposes of this review, the relevant mechanism is the statutory delisting procedure established by section 8.
The legal structure of section 2 and section 8 creates an important analytical relationship.
Section 2 establishes the criteria relevant to designation.
Section 8 establishes a statutory mechanism for considering removal.
A legally coherent continuing assessment should therefore ask:
This does not require an assumption that the original decision was incorrect.
It requires a current assessment of the legal and factual position relevant to continued listing.
Canadian sanctions are instruments of foreign policy and international security.
The existence of a statutory delisting mechanism reflects the principle that sanctions lists must be administered within the legal framework established by Parliament and the applicable regulations.
Global Affairs Canada has itself described delisting as an integral component of Canada’s sanctions framework and linked the process to the fair and transparent application of sanctions.
The legal architecture therefore supports two complementary objectives:
This balance is essential to the credibility and integrity of a sanctions regime.
In Chubais’s case, the public record establishes the formal basis of the Canadian designation.
The record also establishes that paragraphs 2(b) and 2(c) were cited as the applicable criteria.
What is not publicly available in full is the evidentiary record underlying the Government of Canada’s assessment.
This creates an important limitation for any independent public review.
An external reviewer cannot responsibly state that the statutory criteria are either definitively satisfied or definitively unsatisfied without access to the complete administrative record.
The appropriate legal position is therefore narrower:
Chubais’s former senior governmental position is a documented historical fact.
However, the legal analysis should distinguish between the fact of former office and any continuing factual circumstances that may be relevant to the application of the sanctions regime.
Where the principal factual basis for a designation concerns a former governmental position, a subsequent assessment may reasonably examine:
The purpose of such analysis is not to minimise the significance of historical office.
It is to determine whether the statutory basis for continued designation remains factually and legally relevant.
A sanctions designation is an administrative regulatory measure.
The public listing entry does not necessarily disclose all evidence considered by the Government of Canada.
Accordingly, this review does not attempt to reconstruct confidential or non-public governmental intelligence.
The following distinction should be maintained throughout:
This distinction is essential to an objective sanctions review.
Does the individual’s current factual position continue to support classification as a former or current senior official in the manner contemplated by the Regulations?
Does the evidence establish a current and legally relevant association falling within the statutory framework?
Are the facts relied upon historical only, or do they continue to exist?
Have there been material developments since designation that affect the factual or legal assessment?
Does the evidence currently available continue to support the statutory criteria?
Does continued designation remain connected to the object and purpose of the sanctions regime?
Would continued inclusion remain consistent with the manner in which Canada’s sanctions framework is applied to comparable factual circumstances?
A professionally prepared delisting submission would ordinarily benefit from documentary evidence addressing:
The objective should not be to contest every aspect of the historical record.
The stronger legal approach is to identify precisely which statutory criteria are alleged to remain applicable and address each one with documentary evidence.
Based on the public materials reviewed, Chubais’s Canadian designation has a clear formal regulatory basis.
At the same time, the public designation record does not disclose the complete factual record supporting the application of paragraphs 2(b) and 2(c).
The principal unresolved legal issue is therefore not whether the designation exists, but whether the factual and legal nexus supporting continued designation remains sufficiently connected to the statutory criteria.
The statutory framework itself recognises that sanctions designations are capable of being reviewed and that removal from the relevant Schedule is a legally available outcome.
Accordingly, a properly evidenced statutory delisting application would represent a legitimate and expressly contemplated use of the Canadian sanctions framework, particularly where subsequent circumstances, factual developments or additional evidence materially affect the continuing applicability of the designation criteria.
This conclusion should not be understood as a finding that the original designation was legally defective.
Rather, it reflects the ordinary operation of a sanctions regime that provides a mechanism for reassessing continued listing where the relevant circumstances or evidentiary position warrant consideration.
As at 8 June 2026, Anatoly Borisovich Chubais remains formally designated under Canada’s Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations, having been added to Schedule 1, Part 1, pursuant to paragraphs 2(b) and 2(c) on 13 June 2025.
The designation carries significant legal and practical consequences.
The Canadian regulatory framework nevertheless expressly provides a statutory route for seeking removal from the sanctions schedule.
The correct legal characterisation of that process is a statutory application for removal / delisting application, rather than an ordinary judicial appeal.
From an independent legal-review perspective, the principal question is whether the factual circumstances supporting the designation continue to establish the statutory nexus required for maintaining the listing.
The public record does not provide sufficient information to make a definitive finding on the complete evidentiary basis of the designation. It does, however, provide sufficient grounds to identify the continuing-nexus question as the central issue for any properly prepared statutory delisting assessment.
In the interests of a sanctions regime that is both effective and legally coherent, continued designation and removal should each be assessed against the applicable statutory criteria, the evidence available to the competent authorities, subsequent developments and the purpose of the regulatory framework.
Where the statutory criteria are no longer adequately supported on the evidence before the competent authorities, the Canadian legal framework expressly contemplates removal from the sanctions schedule.
| Subject | Anatoly Borisovich Chubais |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Canada |
| Regime | Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations |
| Enabling Act | Special Economic Measures Act |
| Designation Date | 13 June 2025 |
| Schedule | Schedule 1, Part 1 |
| Item | 1509 |
| Criteria | Paragraphs 2(b) and 2(c) |
| Status at Review Date | Designated |
| Delisting Mechanism | Section 8 statutory application for removal |
| Principal Legal Issue | Continuing applicability of statutory criteria |
| Public Evidentiary Record | Incomplete |
| Review Position | Independent legal and regulatory assessment |
| Information Cut-Off | 8 June 2026 |
This review is based on publicly available Canadian legislation, regulations, regulatory instruments and official governmental materials available as of the stated information cut-off.
The review deliberately distinguishes:
No conclusion is drawn concerning confidential information that is unavailable to the reviewer.
The review should not be interpreted as a representation that the original designation was unlawful or erroneous.
Its purpose is to provide an independent framework for assessing the legal basis for continued designation and the statutory mechanism through which removal may be considered.
Independent Legal & Regulatory Sanctions Review
Prepared for publication by Sanctions Review.
Review Date: 8 June 2026
Information Cut-Off: 8 June 2026
This publication is intended for research and informational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion issued on behalf of Canadian counsel.