Even the CBC article posted above states that the burden is on the persecuted individual "to prove to immigration officials here [in Canada] that it isn't a crime in Canada to criticize the Russian army."
This is not the only example.
The American constitution says: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Canadian one says: peace, order, and good government. Different strokes for different folks - you do you.
She’ll explain, it’ll be approved, and everything will be fine in a matter of months.
It’s stupid but will be fine.
It's not incompetence or Kafkaesque, it's at some level a real concern to them.
As someone who also lives in a Commonwealth country, it's not surprising they ended up at this point.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/maria-kartasheva-russi...
This is just your average case of bureaucratic process, where they flag on technical truths (that the kind of conviction has similarities to any existing law in Canada, no matter how tenuous), and then the applicant explains the situation and it gets resolved.
Yes, it sucks that it caused such a situation in this obvious case, and it's stressful as hell, but the whole point of the explanation part is to keep edge cases from falling through the cracks.