Related Rule
Canada
Practice Relating to Rule 65. Perfidy
Section D. Simulation of surrender
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states: “The following are examples of perfidy if a hostile act is committed while: … feigning … to surrender.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-2, § 9(a) (land warfare) and p. 7-2, § 17(a) (air warfare); see also p. 8-11, § 81(b) (naval warfare).
The manual also considers that “feigning surrender of an aircraft and then firing on an unsuspecting adversary after such surrender was accepted” constitutes perfidy in air warfare. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 7-2, § 18(b).
The manual further identifies as a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime the “perfidious use of … protective signs recognized by the Geneva Conventions or [the 1977 Additional Protocol] I”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-2, § 8(a) and p. 16-3, § 16(f).
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapters on land warfare and air warfare: “The following are examples of perfidy if a hostile act is committed while: a. feigning an intent … to surrender”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 603.2.a (land warfare) and 706.2.a (air warfare).
In its chapter on air warfare, the manual further states that it is an example of perfidy in air warfare “if a hostile act is committed while … b. feigning surrender of an aircraft and then firing on an unsuspecting adversary after such surrender was accepted”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 706.3.b.
In its chapter on naval warfare, the manual states: “The following are examples of perfidy if a hostile act is committed while: … b. feigning distress or surrender (e.g., by sending a distress signal or by the crew taking to the life rafts)”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 857.2.b.
In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual identifies as a grave breach of Additional Protocol I and a war crime the “perfidious use of … protective signs recognized by the Geneva Conventions or [the 1977 Additional Protocol] I”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1608.2.f.
Canada’s Geneva Conventions Act (1985), as amended in 2007, provides: “Every person who, whether within or outside Canada, commits a grave breach [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] … is guilty of an indictable offence.” 
Canada, Geneva Conventions Act, 1985, as amended in 2007, Section 3(1).
Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides that the war crimes defined in Article 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law” and, as such, indictable offences under the Act. 
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Section 4(1) and (4).
In 2013, in the Sapkota case, Canada’s Federal Court dismissed a request for review of a decision denying refugee protection to the applicant on grounds of complicity in crimes against humanity in Nepal between 1991 and 2009. While reviewing the submissions of the respondent, Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Court stated: “The Respondent notes that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court … is endorsed in Canada as a source of customary law.” 
Canada, Federal Court, Sapkota case, Reasons for Judgment and Judgment, 15 July 2013, § 28.