This article assesses the implications of the Canadian case of Bouzari v. Islamic Republic of Iran in which sovereign immunity barred recovery against a foreign state for acts of torture. Part 2 describes the case and the courts ' rejection of arguments centred on the hierarchy of jus cogens norms, implied waiver and common law principles. Part 3 evaluates parallel develop- ments in the United States and demonstrates the commonalities and differences associated with efforts to overcome immunity in the two countries. Part 4 examines potential amend- ments to Canada's State Immunity Act with a view to balancing considerations of comity with a just and workable means of holding states accountable for grave human rights abuses.