No: 34884 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL)
BETWEEN THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS APPELLANTS (Respondents in the Court below)
- AND -
MOHAMED HARKAT
RESPONDENT (Appellant in the Court below)
-AND-
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO
INTERVENER
AND BETWEEN
MOHAMED HARKAT APPELLANT (Appellant in the Court below)
- AND -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
RESPONDENTS (Respondents in the Court below)
-AND-
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO
INTERVENER
MINISTERS' FACTUM ON APPEAL (Pursuant to r. 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada)
Counsel for the Appellants Solicitor for the Appellants
Urszula Kaczmarczyk William F. Pentney Senior General Counsel Deputy Attorney General of Canada Department of Justice Department of Justice Ontario Regional Office East Memorial Building The Exchange Tower 234 Wellington Street 130 King Street West Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8 Suite 3400, Box 36 Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6 Per: Robert Frater Tel: (613) 957-4763 Tel: (416) 973-3688 Fax: (613) 954-1920 Fax: (416) 954-8982 E-mail: [email protected] Email:[email protected]
Robert Frater Senior General Counsel Department of Justice East Memorial Building 234 Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8
Tel: (613) 957-4763 Fax: (613) 954-1920 E-mail: [email protected]
ORIGINAL The Registrar TO: Supreme Court of Canada
AND TO: Counsel for the Respondent, Agent for the Respondent, Mohamed Mohamed Harkat Harkat
Norman D. Boxall Supreme Advocacy LLP Bayne, Sellar, Boxall 397 Gladstone Ave. Barristers and Solicitors Suite 100 Suite 500 Ottawa, Ontario K2P 0Y9 200 Elgin Street Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1L5 Per: Eugene Meehan, Q.C. Tel: (613) 236-0535 Marie-France Major Thomas Slade Fax: (613) 236-6958 Telephone: (613) 695-8855 E-mail: Fax: (613) 695-8580 [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] Matthew Webber Webber, Schroeder, Goldstein, Abergel Criminal Defence Counsel 116 Lisgar Street, Suite 200 Ottawa, Ontario K2P 0C2 Tel: (613) 235-9779 Fax: (613) 235-8317 E-mail: [email protected]
AND TO: Special Advocate Special Advocate
Paul D. Copeland Paul Cavalluzzo Copeland, Duncan Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton McIntyre & 31 Prince Arthur Avenue Cornish LLP Toronto ON M5R 1B2 474 Bathurst St. Toronto, ON M5T 2S6 Tel: 416-964-8126 Fax: 416-960-5456 Tel: 416-964-1115 Email: [email protected] Fax: 416-964-5895 Email: [email protected]
AND TO: Counsel for the Intervener Agent for the Intervener Attorney Attorney General of Ontario General of Ontario
Robert W. Hubbard Robert E. Houston, Q.C. Crown Law Office Criminal, 10th Burke-Robertson LLP Floor. Barristers and Solicitors 720 Bay St. 441 MacLaren Street Toronto, Ontario M7A 2S9 Suite 200 Ottawa, ON K2P 2H3 Phone: 416-326-2307 Fax: 416-326-4656 Tel: 613-706-0020 Email: [email protected] Fax: 613-235-4430
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MINISTERS' FACTUM ON APPEAL ...... 1 OVERVIEW ...... 1 PART I – STATEMENT OF FACTS ...... 2 A. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS ...... 2 1) General Background ...... 2 2) Hearing into the Reasonableness of the Certificate ...... 2 3) The Judgments Below ...... 4 (i) Federal Court ...... 4 (ii) Federal Court of Appeal ...... 8 PART II – POINTS IN ISSUE ...... 9 PART III – ARGUMENT ...... 9 A. STANDARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW ...... 9 B. LEGISLATIVE SCHEME...... 10 C. LEGISLATIVE SCHEME IS CONSTITUTIONAL ...... 13 1) Scheme in accordance with principles of fundamental justice and s. 7 ...... 13 (i) Context of the proceeding ...... 14 (ii) Adequate substitute for full disclosure ...... 16 (iii) Challenging the Ministers’ case; decision on all of the facts and law ...... 18 (iv) Restrictions on Communications do not violate s. 7 ...... 19 (v) Test for admissibility of evidence ...... 22 2) Any alleged section 7 infringement saved by section 1 ...... 22 D. NO ABUSE OF PROCESS, VIOLATION OF S. 7, OR NEED TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE..... 26 1) Court of Appeal misapplied Charkaoui 2 ...... 27 2) Court of Appeal improperly interfered with Judge's assessment of prejudice . 28 3) Actual prejudice required to show Charter breach - no prejudice, no unfairness, no need to exclude evidence ...... 30 4) Remedy ...... 31 E. “SEARCHING REVIEW” – NO ERROR IN ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE ...... 32 F. HUMAN SOURCE / INFORMER ISSUES ...... 34 1) CSIS Human Sources are protected by a Class Privilege ...... 34 2) Scope of the Common Law Rule ...... 34 3) The IRPA did not Abrogate the Common Law Rule ...... 35 4) Should there be an Exception to this Class Privilege? ...... 38 5) Should the Special Advocates have a Right to Cross-examine Informers? ...... 39 PART IV – COSTS ...... 40 PART V – NATURE OF ORDER SOUGHT ...... 40 PART VI – TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...... 42 ii
A. JURISPRUDENCE ...... 42 B. OTHER AUTHORITIES ...... 45 APPENDIX “A” – STATUTES RELIED ON ...... 48 APPENDIX “B” – CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ...... 98
1
OVERVIEW
1. Public safety and national security are among the most serious concerns of government. In Division 9 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), Parliament adopted measures to protect against the disclosure of information that would be injurious to national security or endanger the safety of any person. The disclosure of such information cannot be permitted.
2. The legislative scheme in the IRPA provides for a fair hearing for persons named in security certificates, while at the same time safeguarding confidential national security information. The scheme responds to this Court’s guidance in Charkaoui 1, and, as the Federal Court of Appeal found, is in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice and is constitutional. T he conduct of the proceedings in this case amply demonstrates the fairness of the scheme.
3. The Court of Appeal erred in eliminating the class privilege for CSIS informers by disregarding the two principles underlying the privilege: the need to protect people who provide information in confidence to authorities, and the need to encourage others to do the same. Its decision weakens the protection of informers and places Canada’s intelligence gathering capabilities at risk. It must be reversed.
4. Mohamed Harkat associated with terrorists and Islamist extremists and provided them with material support. After a thorough and fair 32-month-long process, the designated judge found almost all of the allegations against him to be substantiated and Mr. Harkat was determined to be inadmissible to Canada on security grounds. The Court of Appeal erred in excluding the summaries of two relatively insignificant intercepted conversations and in sending the matter back to consider the effect of excluding such evidence. Mr. Harkat was found inadmissible because Justice Noël accepted that the serious allegations against him were well-supported by the evidence. Even without those two calls, that conclusion is unassailable. Justice Noël’s decision upholding the reasonableness of the security certificate should be restored. 2
PART I – STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
1) General Background
5. Mr. Harkat is an Algerian citizen who came to Canada in 1995. In 1997, he was granted Convention refugee status, although his explanation for why he left Algeria was later found to lack credibility.1 In 2002, he was detained on t he basis of a security certificate which alleged that, prior to and after his arrival in Canada, he had engaged in terrorism as a member of the terrorist entity known as the Bin Laden Network. T hat certificate was found reasonable by Dawson J. (as she then was) of the Federal Court.2
6. On February 23, 2007, t his Court struck down the previous security certificate regime as it did not comply with s. 7 of the Charter (“Charkaoui 1”).3 In response to this decision, the IRPA was significantly revised.
7. On February 22, 200 8, the Ministers of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and of Citizenship and Immigration (“the Ministers”) signed a new security certificate stating that Mr. Harkat is inadmissible to Canada on security grounds pursuant to s. 34 of the IRPA because there are reasonable grounds to believe he had engaged in terrorism, was a danger to the security of Canada, and was a member of a terrorist organization.4 On that same day, Mr. Harkat was provided with an unclassified summary of the allegations that, in the Ministers’ view, rendered him inadmissible to Canada.5 The certificate was referred to the Federal Court for a determination of its reasonableness.
2) Hearing into the Reasonableness of the Certificate
8. Justice Noël, a designated judge of the Federal Court, presided over Mr. Harkat's security certificate proceedings. During these proceedings, he issued dozens of orders
1 Exhibit M-7, Public Summary of the Revised Security Intelligence Report [RPSIR], dated February 5, 2009, p 4, Joint Appeal Record [Appeal Record], Vol 34, Tab 104, p 3; Appeal Record, Tab 9, Harkat (Re) 2010 FC 1241 [Harkat Reasonableness decision] at paras 160-171, 538 2 Ministers' Book of Authorities [MBA] , Tab 26, Harkat (Re), 2005 FC 393 3 MBA Tab 16, Charkaoui v Canada (MCI), 2007 SCC 9, [2007] 1 SCR 350 [Charkaoui 1] at paras 133-143 4 IRPA, ss 34(1)(c),(d), and (f) 5 Public Summary of the Security Intelligence Report [PSIR], February 22, 2008, Appeal Record, Vol 3, Tab 16, p 4 3
and directions and rendered a number of judgments.6 The proceedings were lengthy and were conducted with care and attention.
9. There were thirty-three days of public hearings and seventeen days of closed hearings into the reasonableness of the certificate. Mr. Harkat himself testified over the course of 5 days. In addition, public and closed hearings were held regarding disclosure issues. In the closed hearings, the special advocates cross-examined witnesses on various subjects including the reasonableness of the certificate, the assessment of danger, and the extent of disclosure, the applicability of various privileges, and the human sources.7 The reasonableness hearing was temporarily adjourned for a hearing into the late disclosure of polygraph test results relating to a human source.8
10. On September 24, 2008, in reliance on this Court’s second Charkaoui decision (Charkaoui 2),9 Justice Noël ordered the Ministers to file in the closed proceedings “...all information and Intelligence related to Mohammed Harkat including, but not limited to, drafts, diagrams, recordings and photographs in CSIS’s possession or holdings with the designated proceedings section of the Court.” 10
11. The initial production of the “Charkaoui 2 disclosure” consisted of thousands of records. Before these could be disclosed to the special advocates, many had to be partially redacted for various privileges and because some dealt with matters unconnected to Mr. Harkat. The process took more than six months. Justice Noël then reviewed the proposed redactions, and where he did not agree, he ordered further disclosure to the special advocates. This extended the process by several more months.11
12. As a result of the Charkaoui 2 process, a large number of documents were provided to the special advocates in the closed proceedings. Some of these could be disclosed to Mr. Harkat, and of these, a few were ultimately filed into the record by the
6 Appeal Record, Tab10, Harkat (Re) 2010 FC 1242 [Harkat Constitutionality decision], Appendix B 7 Appeal Record, Tab 9, Harkat Reasonableness decision at paras 49, 72, 120 8 Appeal Record, Tab 9, Harkat Reasonableness decision at para 33; Appeal Record, Tab10, Harkat Constitutionality decision at paras 15-16 9 MBA Tab 17, Charkaoui v Canada (MCI), 2008 SCC 38 [Charkaoui 2] 10 Appeal Record, Tab 9, Harkat Reasonableness decision at paras 22-23 11 Appeal Record, Tab 9, Harkat Reasonableness decision at para 24 4
parties as evidence.12 Commenting on the outcome of the Charkaoui 2 process, Justice Noël noted that the court and the special advocates did not find any “smoking gun or substantive information that was not included in the original disclosure. The disclosure process added months to the proceeding.”13
13. In accordance with the requirements of the IRPA, Justice Noël also conducted regular reviews of the conditions of Mr. Harkat's release.14 These conditions were progressively relaxed over time.
14. As a result of the work being done in the closed proceedings, Mr. Harkat continued to receive information. J ustice Noël routinely issued communications about what was taking place in the closed proceedings.15 Mr. Harkat received summaries of confidential information and evidence prepared in the closed hearings, and was also provided with more information about the allegations including allegations that had not been previously disclosed.16
3) The Judgments Below (i) Federal Court
15. Justice Noël upheld the security certificate issued against Mr. Harkat as being reasonable. In this decision, he found that the evidence established the following:
(a) That Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda supplied money and resources to the Chechen terrorist cause through the jihadist Ibn Khattab and the Basayev group. The Basayev and Khattab groups were not part of Al-Qaeda core, but were part of the Bin Laden Network, “an international network of groups and individuals that follow or support the goals of Osama Bin Laden.” (BLN);
12 Appeal Record, Tab 9, Harkat Reasonableness decision at paras 24, and 69, Exhibits M13, M15, M17, M18, M25 and M26 13 Appeal Record, Tab 11, Harkat (Re), 2010 FC 1243 [Harkat Abuse of process decision] at para 13 14 IRPA, ss 82(4) & 82(5); MBA Tab 27, Harkat (Re) 2009 FC 241, (March 6, 2009); MBA Tab 28, Harkat (Re) 2009 FC 1008 (October 7, 2009); Appeal Record, Tab10, Harkat Constitutionality decision, Appendix “A” 15 Summaries of communications from the Court to Harkat regarding the closed proceedings: Appeal Record, Vol 3, Tab 19, 29, 33; Vol 4, Tabs 40, 42, 44, 46, 49, 51, 55, 57, 61,63 16 See: Exhibit M-7, RPSIR, dated February 5, 2009, Appeal Record Vol 34, Tab 104; Exhibit M-10 Summary of information contained in SIR (Summary of Three Allegations) dated February 23, 2009, Appeal Record Vol 35, Tab 109 at p 47; Exhibit M-11 Supplementary Confidential SIR, Appeal Record Vol 35, Tab 110 at 48-54; Exhibit M-15 Summary of the Charkaoui II Disclosure for Mohamed Harkat dated April 23, 2009, Appeal Record Vol 35, Tab 119 at p 188-197 5
(b) Mr. Harkat operated a guesthouse for Khattab for at least 15 months in Pakistan, and as such demonstrated active membership in a group involved in terrorist activities in Chechnya which was affiliated with the Basayev group; (c) Contrary to his testimony and evidence, Mr. Harkat visited Afghanistan during his stay in Pakistan; (d) Mr. Harkat had links to Al Gamaa Al Islamiya, an Islamic extremist group in Egypt; (e) Mr. Harkat used “sleeper agent” methods after his arrival in Canada such as false documents, employing various anti-surveillance techniques and concealing the aliases he used while in Pakistan; (f) Mr. Harkat spoke with Abu Messab Al Shehre, an Islamist extremist associated with Al-Qaeda and the BLN, prior to his arrival in Canada and counselled him to keep a low profile. Al Shehre was searched on arrival in Canada and found to possess a garrotte, an 11½ inch sword, a shoulder holster for a Russian gun, instructional documents on a ssassination techniques, tools and information for document forgery, a head banner inscribed with Koranic verses, as well as a shopping list for munitions and weapons, including a Kalashnikov rifle, and a rocket propelled grenade. (g) Mr. Harkat provided financial assistance to Al Shehre by paying his legal fees with the involvement of Abu Zubaydah, an important facilitator for the BLN, and maintained contact with Al Shehre after his deportation from Canada for inadmissibility on terrorism grounds; (h) Mr. Harkat assisted known extremist Mohammed Aissa Triki on h is processing through Canadian immigration including counselling him to deny knowledge of anyone living in Canada, and contacting Harkat once cleared through immigration. (i) Mr. Harkat knew Abu Dahhak, an individual related to Al-Qaeda; (j) While in Canada, Mr. Harkat maintained existing contacts with Islamist extremists linked to Al-Qaeda such as Ahmed S. Khadr, and Abu Zubaydah; (k) There are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Harkat was a member of an entity that is part of the BLN prior to his arrival in Canada and that he continued to be an active member of the BLN and provided support to the network. (l) Although the danger associated with Mr. Harkat has diminished over time, Justice Noël concluded that he still posed a danger to Canada.17
16. Justice Noël made many adverse findings about Mr. Harkat’s credibility. He concluded that Mr. Harkat had lied about knowing Khattab and the known extremists Al Shehre, Khadr, Abu Dahhak and Abu Zubaydah; that he lied about whether he knew that the group that he belonged to, the Front islamique du salut, had an explicit Islamic agenda,
17 Appeal Record, Tab 9, Harkat Reasonableness decision, at paras 2-14, 96 (evidence given by John), 144, 298, 345, 355-369, 397, 398-409, 427-428, 433-464, 473, 477-482, 485-493, 523-526, 528 and 539-547 6
and about being aware of the situation in Afghanistan in the late 1980s; he lied about why he left Algeria and his purpose for going to Saudi Arabia; he lied about how he had obtained employment for the Muslim World League in Pakistan; he lied about not having run a guest house for Khattab in 1994-1995; and he lied about how he accumulated so much money in Pakistan and about how he had access to large sums of money in Canada even though he only had minimum wage jobs. 18
17. Mr. Harkat’s testimony gave the impression that he was reciting a meticulously prepared and fabricated story. His evidence was not plausible, coherent or logical. Mr. Harkat's simplistic denials of key factual elements of the Ministers’ case, which were supported by public evidence, undermined his credibility and led Justice Noël to conclude that he was not being truthful, honest or transparent.19 This was not the first time that Mr. Harkat’s credibility had been criticized. In upholding the first security certificate against Mr. Harkat, Dawson J. said that it was “clear and beyond doubt that Mr. Harkat lied under oath to the Court in several important respects.”20
18. Justice Noël held that the security certificate provisions of the IRPA are constitutional and do not violate the named person’s rights to procedural fairness under s. 7 of the Charter.21 In the alternative, he concluded that they were demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1.22
19. Justice Noël found that Mr. Harkat had not established either an abuse of process, or that a breach of s.7 of the Charter had resulted from the destruction of original materials related to intercepted conversations. He did not consider that it was necessary to exclude the summaries of the conversations as a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter in the circumstances.23 In reaching this conclusion, Justice Noël found that the original recordings had not been destroyed by CSIS for a malicious reason, but rather further to a
18 Appeal Record, Tab 9, Harkat Reasonableness decision, at paras 139, 142, 171, 172-179, 186-208, 238, 256-263, 485-495, 496-525, 528, 531, 536 19 Appeal Record, Tab 9, Harkat Reasonableness decision at paras 529-538 20 MBA Tab 26, Harkat (Re), 2005 FC 393 at paras 105-114 21 Appeal Record, Tab 10, Harkat Constitutionality decision at paras 203-204, 234-235; IRPA, ss. 77(2); 83(1); 83(1.2); 85.1(1), (2), (3), (4); 85.2; 85.4(1), (2),(3); 85.5 22 Appeal Record, Tab 10, Harkat Constitutionality decision at paras 234-235 23 Appeal Record, Tab 11, Harkat Abuse of process decision at paras 59-76 7
prior policy. They had been summarized in an effort to preserve their content and no prejudice had been established because: the summaries accurately reflected Mr. Harkat's life at the time, were supported by other closed evidence, and were reliable.24 The destruction of the original recordings had not resulted in an abuse of process that was aggravated by the conduct of the hearing. Further, Mr. Harkat had received further disclosure from the Charkaoui 2 disclosure and from Justice Noel’s disclosure orders. His interests had been protected by the special advocates during the closed proceedings.25
20. In a separate decision, Justice Noël rejected the special advocates' request to interview and cross-examine the informers.26 While the special advocates acknowledged that CSIS informers benefit from informer privilege in the public hearings, they claimed a right of full access to the informers, including to interview and cross-examine them, suggesting that any risk to the security of the informers could be mitigated through appropriate security measures and a closed hearing.27
21. In refusing the request, Justice Noël held that CSIS informers should benefit from a class privilege akin to informer privilege and that the relationship between CSIS and its informers must be protected with a guarantee that their identities will be protected. Confidentiality guarantees are essential to CSIS’s ability to fulfill its legislative mandate to protect Canada’s national security, while protecting the informer from retribution.28 He accepted the Ministers’ evidence that allowing informers’ identities to be known would harm the relationship between CSIS and its informers. He determined that there should be a “need to know” exception to the privilege, with the identity of an informer only being provided to the special advocates if there was a need to prevent “a flagrant denial of procedural fairness that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”29
24 Appeal Record, Tab 11, Harkat Abuse of process decision at paras 64, 66 and 69 25 Appeal Record, Tab 11, Harkat Abuse of process decision at paras 72, 74 and 75 26 Appeal Record, Tab 3, Harkat (Re), 2009 FC 204 [Harkat Informer Privilege Decision] paras 6-12, 62- 69, 75 27 Appeal Record, Tab 3, Harkat Informer privilege decision at para 49 28 Appeal Record, Tab 3, Harkat Informer privilege decision at paras 28-31 29 Appeal Record, Tab 3, Harkat Informer privilege decision at paras 46-71 8
22. Later in the proceedings, in response to being advised by the Ministers that they had failed to disclose that one of the informers had failed a polygraph test, Justice Noël concluded that this was a breach of the Ministers’ duty of good faith which met the “need to know” exception. As a remedy for this breach, he ordered disclosure of two complete human source files including information which would identify the informers to the special advocates.30
(ii) Federal Court of Appeal
23. The Court of Appeal upheld the constitutionality of the security certificate provisions in the IRPA concluding that they did not violate the named person’s s. 7 Charter rights.31
24. The Court of Appeal held that the protection of an informer’s identity is governed by the IRPA security certificate provisions and not by a common-law privilege and that information that would identify an informer should be provided to the court and to the special advocates in a c losed hearing unless the Ministers “satisfy the judge that such disclosure would be injurious to the safety of a person.”32 The Court held that judicial creation of the class privilege would run contrary to the provisions in the IRPA that specifically protect information if its disclosure would endanger the safety of any person. In particular, the information must be disclosed unless the judge is of the opinion that there exists a danger to the safety of the informer if the information is disclosed.33
25. The Court of Appeal held that the destruction of original investigative material pursuant to former CSIS policy breached Mr. Harkat’s s. 7 Charter rights and required a remedy.34 At issue was the destruction of original materials associated with 20 intercepted conversations of which only 13 were relevant to the question of
30 Appeal Record, Tab 5, Harkat (Re), 2009 FC 553 [Harkat Disclosure decision] paras 1-3, 13, 14 and Order 31 Appeal Record, Tab 14, Harkat v Canada (MCI), 2012 FCA 122 [Harkat Appeal decision] paras 70-117 32 Appeal Record, Tab 14, Harkat Appeal decision at paras 92-99 33 Appeal Record, Tab 14, Harkat Appeal decision at paras 94-95; MBA Tab 10, Canada (Attorney General) v Almalki, 2011 FCA 199 at paras 20-23 34 Appeal Record, Tab 14, Harkat Appeal decision at paras 129-130, 139; Policy OPS-217 referenced in Charkaoui 2 at paras 30-35, MBA Tab 17 9
inadmissibility. Mr. Harkat had participated in most of these conversations. While the original materials had been destroyed, summaries were available.35
26. In the Court’s view, the appropriate remedy was to exclude the summaries of conversations to which Mr. Harkat was not a party. For the conversations in which he had taken part, the Court concluded that a sufficient remedy was to declare that his rights to disclosure had been violated.36 Having ordered the exclusion of the summaries of some conversations as a remedy, it set aside the decision on r easonableness, and directed Justice Noël to re-consider the case, without regard to those summaries.37 The Court of Appeal upheld the balance of Justice Noël’s legal conclusions and did not disturb his factual findings in respect of the reasonableness of the security certificate.
PART II – POINTS IN ISSUE
27. Is the security certificate statutory scheme constitutional?
28. Should the Designated Judge's conclusion that there was no abuse of process and no violation of s. 7 of the Charter be restored?
29. Did the Designated Judge properly assess the evidence?
30. Do CSIS informers in security certificate proceedings benefit from a cl ass privilege? PART III – ARGUMENT
A. STANDARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW
31. The standard of appellate review on questions of law is correctness. Whether the Court of Appeal chose the appropriate standard of review is itself a question of law. The standard of appellate review on que stions of fact is palpable and overriding error. Findings of fact, including the drawing of inferences, are afforded a high degree of
35 Appeal Record, Tab 9, Harkat Reasonableness decision paras 66, 108-119, 274 and 292 36 Appeal Record, Tab 14, Harkat Appeal decision at paras 122-144 37 Appeal Record, Tab 14, Harkat Appeal decision at paras 146-153 10
deference.38 Applying these well-established standards, the Court of Appeal and the Designated Judge correctly determined that the legislative regime is constitutional.
32. The Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that CSIS informers do not benefit from a common-law class privilege. It also erred in law by failing to conduct a standard of review analysis and in failing to apply the proper standard of appellate review when considering the Designated Judge’s disposition of Mr. Harkat’s abuse of process motion. The Court of Appeal incorrectly interfered with the Designated Judge’s determination that the destruction of CSIS’s original investigative materials had no prejudicial effect in the absence of any palpable and overriding error.
B. LEGISLATIVE SCHEME
33. A security certificate may be issued by the Ministers as the initiating process to determine if a n on-citizen is inadmissible on g rounds of security, violating human or international rights or serious criminality or organized criminality.39
34. The security certificate provisions in Division 9 of the IRPA provide a mechanism for the protection of information or evidence the disclosure of which would injure Canada's national security or endanger the safety of any person.40 These provisions further the IRPA objectives of protecting the safety and security of Canadian society by denying access to Canadian territory to persons who are criminals or security risks.41
35. After signing a security certificate, the Ministers must refer it to the Federal Court for a d etermination of its reasonableness by a designated judge.42 They must also file with the Court the information or other evidence on which the certificate is based, as well as a summary of the information and other evidence that will enable the person named in the certificate to be reasonably informed of the Ministers’ case. However, the summary
38 MBA Tab 29, Housen v Nikolaisen 2002 SCC 33 at paras 5-6, 8, 10-25, 26-28, 32-36; MBA Tab 24, HL v Canada (Attorney General) 2005 SCC 25 at para 53, [2005] 1 SCR 401 39 IRPA, s 34-37 40 IRPA, Division 9, ss 77-85 41 IRPA, s 3(1)(h) and (i) 42 IRPA, s 76 “judge” means the Chief Justice of the Federal Court or a judge designated by the Chief Justice 11
will not include anything that, in the Ministers’ opinion, would be injurious to national security or endanger the safety of any person if disclosed.43
36. The designated judge shall ensure the confidentiality of information and other evidence provided by the Ministers if, in the judge’s opinion, its disclosure would be injurious to national security or endanger the safety of any person. T hroughout the proceedings, the designated judge ensures that the named person is provided with summaries of information and other evidence that allow him to be reasonably informed of the Ministers’ case.44 To protect this information, in camera or closed proceedings are held which exclude the named person and the public, but where a special advocate appointed to protect the interests of the named person is present.45 The designated judge shall appoint the named person’s preferred choice of special advocate absent any disqualifying factors such as unavailability or conflict.46 Here, two special advocates selected by Mr. Harkat were appointed.
37. Sections 85 t hrough 85.6 of the IRPA outline the roles and responsibilities of special advocates.47 Their role is to protect the named person’s interests when information or other evidence is heard in the absence of the public and of the named person or their counsel. In Mr. Harkat’s case, a special advocate was also usually present during the open hearings to hear the evidence.
38. Special advocates challenge the Ministers’ claims of confidentiality and the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the classified information and evidence in the closed hearing. They cross-examine witnesses and, with judicial authorization, exercise any other power necessary to protect the interests of the named person.48
43 IRPA, s 7 6-78; s 76 defines “information” as security or criminal intelligence information and information that was obtained in confidence from a source in Canada, the government of a foreign state, an international organization of states or an institution of such a government or international organization. 44 IRPA, ss 83(1)(c),(d) and (e) 45 IRPA, s 83(1)(b), 83(1.2), 85.1, 85.2 46 IRPA, s 83(1.2) 47 IRPA, s 85.1(1)-85.6 48 IRPA, s 85.1(2)(a)(b); and s 85.2(a)(b) and (c) 12
39. While the relationship is not that of solicitor and client, communications between the special advocate and the named person that would be protected by solicitor client privilege are deemed to be covered by that privilege; the special advocate is not a compellable witness in respect of them.49
40. The IRPA imposes confidentiality obligations on all persons who have received disclosure of information that the designated judge finds must be protected. Section 85.5 of the IRPA prohibits any person from disclosing information or other evidence treated as confidential by the designated judge or communicating about the content of the proceedings with any person, except with judicial authorization.
41. Section 85.4(2) sets out the special advocate’s confidentiality obligation. It commences once the special advocate has been provided with the confidential information or evidence.50 The special advocate has full communication with the named person up until the special advocate has received the confidential materials; thereafter, the special advocate may not communicate with any person about the proceeding, except with the judge's authorization and subject to any conditions. The IRPA does not preclude communications by the named person or his counsel. Throughout the proceeding, they may forward any information they wish to the special advocate.51
42. In determining the reasonableness of a certificate, or in reviewing detention or conditions of release under Division 9 of the IRPA, the designated judge is to proceed as informally and as expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness and natural justice permit.52 Pursuant to s. 83(1)(h), the judge may “receive into evidence anything that, in the judge’s opinion, is reliable and appropriate, even if it is inadmissible in a court of law and may base a decision on that evidence.” The designated judge may also base a decision on information that has neither been disclosed to the named person nor
49 IRPA, s 85.1(4) 50 IPRA, s 85.4(2) 51 IRPA, s 85.4(2) 52 IRPA, s 83(1)(a) 13
summarized.53 However, a decision may not be based on evidence that is not relevant, or evidence that is withdrawn by the Minister.54
43. A single proven ground of inadmissibility is sufficient for the certificate to be upheld as reasonable.55 A certificate which has been determined to be reasonable is conclusive proof that the named person is inadmissible to Canada and it constitutes a removal order. Should the Court find the certificate not to be reasonable, it is quashed.56
C. LEGISLATIVE SCHEME IS CONSTITUTIONAL
44. The legislative scheme in Division 9 of the IRPA is constitutional. In Division 9, Parliament provided a carefully tailored legislative response to this Court's decision in Charkaoui 1.57 It provides for a fair hearing for persons named in security certificates or in other specified confidential proceedings, while at the same time protecting information whose disclosure would be injurious to national security or would endanger the safety of any person.
45. This Court has stated constitutional questions in relation to the security certificate regime in Division 9 of the IRPA.58 The questions concern: the protection of sensitive information, [s. 77(2)]; the ability to hold confidential hearings, [s. 83(1)(c)]; disclosure of evidence, [s.83(1)(e)]; reliance by the judge on “reliable” or undisclosed evidence, [ss 83(1)(h) and (i)]; and communication by the special advocates, [ss. 85.4(2) and 85.5(b)]. None of these provisions violate s. 7 of the Charter. S hould this Court conclude otherwise, the provisions constitute a reasonable limit of the section 7 right.
1) Scheme in accordance with principles of fundamental justice and s. 7
46. While the Ministers do not contest that Mr. Harkat’s s. 7 Charter rights are engaged, the legislative scheme comports with the principles of fundamental justice. The
53 IRPA, s 83(1)(h); See also 83(1.1) 54 IRPA, ss 83(1)(i) 55 MBA Tab 85, Zündel (Re), 2005 FC 295 paras 16-17; MBA Tab 7, Almrei (Re), 2009 FC 1263 at para 59 56 IRPA, ss 78 and 80 57 MBA Tab 16, Charkaoui 1 at para 28 58 Set out in Appendix B herein. 14
overarching principle of fundamental justice here is the right to a fair hearing.59 The principles of fundamental justice do not demand a particular type of process,60 they simply require that the process be fair in view of the important interests at stake.61
47. When considering the context of the security certificate scheme in Charkaoui 2, this Court noted that there may be serious consequences for persons who are removed from Canada.62 In fact, considerations of risk on removal are dealt with at a later stage under the IRPA, within a pre-removal risk assessment process.63 The security certificate process assesses the question of admissibility in Canada. I t is not reserved only for refugees or persons who face risk on return to their home country.64
48. As this Court has held, the most fundamental principle of immigration law is that non-citizens do not have an unqualified right to enter or remain in Canada. Thus the deportation of a non-citizen in itself cannot implicate the liberty and security interests protected by s. 7 of the Charter.65
(i) Context of the proceeding
49. In the context of a proceeding concerning whether a non-citizen is inadmissible to Canada on s ecurity grounds, the statutory scheme provides substantial procedural protections and has resulted in a demonstrably fair hearing in this case.
50. Societal interests may be considered in delineating the procedural safeguards necessary to satisfy the requirements of a fair process.66 The requirements of fundamental justice are not immutable; rather, they vary according to the context in which they are
59 MBA Tab 16, Charkaoui 1 at para 28 60 MBA Tab 65, R v Lyons, [1987] 2 SCR 309 at p 361; MBA Tab 84, US v Ferras, 2006 SCC 33 at para 14; MBA Tab 16, Charkaoui 1, at para 20; MBA Tab 75, R v Rodgers, 2006 SCC 15 at para 47 61 MBA Tab 16, Charkaoui 1 at para 20 62 MBA Tab 17, Charkaoui 2 at para 50; MBA Tab 1, Ahani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 2 at para 17, [2002] 1 SCR 72; MBA Tab 82, Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 1 at paras 52-56, [2002] 1 SCR 3 63 IRPA, ss. 97, 112 - 115 64 See for e.g.: MBA Tab 85, Zündel, supra; MBA Tab 18, Chiarelli v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 SCR 711; MBA Tab 25, Hampel (Re), (6 December 2006) DES-3-06 65 MBA Tab 18, Chiarelli, supra at p 733; MBA Tab 43, Medovarski v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 51 at para 46 66 MBA Tab 66, R v Malmo- Levine; R. v Caine, 2003 SCC 74 at paras 96-99, [2003] 3 SCR 571 15
invoked and may be affected by the context of the “special problem to which the scheme is directed.”67 “The context in immigration legislation is public safety and national security, the most serious concerns of government.”68
51. Mr. Harkat’s argument in the courts below suggests that the right to disclosure is absolute - that a fair hearing under s. 7 i s impossible without disclosure of protected information.69 This argument is inconsistent with this Court’s jurisprudence. There is no absolute right under s. 7 of the Charter to disclosure of all information.70 As this Court has repeatedly recognized, there is a l egitimate societal interest in the protection of information where the Court determines that its release would be injurious to Canada’s national security or the safety of any person.71
52. In Charkaoui 1, this Court acknowledged that “the right to know the case to be met is not absolute,” preferring a “context-sensitive approach to procedural fairness.”72 National security and public safety interests at stake in a security certificate proceeding may make the procedures applicable in other contexts impractical or impossible.73 Information may be obtained from other countries or from informers on condition that it not be disclosed. Or it ma y simply be so critical that it cannot be disclosed without risking public security. This is a reality of our modern world. If s. 7 is to be satisfied, either the person must be given the necessary information, or a substantial substitute for that information must be found.74
53. In Charkaoui 1, this Court concluded that the previous legislative scheme did not comport with the principles of fundamental justice because it failed to provide for a fair
67 MBA Tab 22, Deacon v Canada (Attorney General), 2006 FCA 265 at paras 52-53, [2007] 2 FCR 607, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2006] SCCA no 319, 2007 CanLII 777 (SCC) 68 MBA Tab 47, Poshteh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 85 at para 27, citing Rothstein J in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh (1998), 151 FTR 101 at para 52 69 Appeal Record, Vol 10, Harkat Constitutionality decision at para 40 70 MBA Tab 79, Ruby v Canada (Solicitor General), 2002 SCC 75; MBA Tab 16, Charkaoui 1; MBA Tab 17, Charkaoui 2 71 MBA Tab 16, Charkaoui 1 at para 58 72 MBA Tab 16, Charkaoui 1 at para 57; MBA Tab 75, Rodgers, supra at para 48 73 MBA Tab 16, Charkaoui 1 at paras 23-24; MBA Tab 15, Chahal v UK, [1996] ECHR 54 at para 131 74 MBA Tab 16, Charkaoui 1 at para 61 16
hearing in two respects: the right to a decision on all of the relevant facts and law; and the right to know and to answer the case.75 The current scheme answers those concerns.
(ii) Adequate substitute for full disclosure
54. The security certificate scheme provides a substantial substitute for full disclosure and allows the named person to know and respond to the Ministers’ case. The appointment of special advocates ensures that the two defects of the former scheme identified in Charkaoui 1, the named person’s inability to know and meet the Ministers’ case and the Court’s decision not being based on the facts and law,76 have been cured.
55. The scheme requires that the named person be provided with a summary of protected information or evidence to ensure that he is reasonably informed of the Ministers’ case in the closed proceeding.77 The summary provided to Mr. Harkat sets out the allegations and information relied on by the Ministers, without disclosing the supporting protected information. Justice Noël concluded that from the public evidence, Mr. Harkat knew “all of the allegations made against him with some valuable supporting factual evidence… [The] entire factual basis may not be known to him but his knowledge is such that as it was seen during the presentation of his evidence, he was able to respond to it. The written submissions of public counsel for Mr. Harkat reflect very clearly his knowledge of the case.”78
56. Special advocates challenge the Ministers’ claim that the disclosure of information or other evidence would be injurious to national security or endanger the safety of any person.79 As a result of the efforts of Mr. Harkat’s special advocates, he was provided with further disclosure.80 Justice Noël noted that Mr. Harkat received
75 MBA Tab 16, Charkaoui 1 at para 65 76 MBA Tab 16, Charkaoui 1 at paras 50-52 77 IRPA, ss 77(2) 78 Appeal Record, Tab 10, Harkat Constitutionality decision at para 31 79 IRPA, s 83(1)(j) 80 Appeal Record, Tab 10, Harkat Constitutionality decision, at paras 13, 63, 138; Appendix “B”, Orders dated September 24, 2008, February 18, 2009, March 5, 2009, March 12, 2009, December 11, 2009 17
disclosure at the request of the special advocates and that this disclosure gave Mr. Harkat a better understanding of the Ministers’ case.81
57. The special advocates also helped to ensure that Mr. Harkat received summaries of what occurred in the closed proceeding.82 Their work resulted in disclosure to Mr. Harkat of “intelligence information gathered by CSIS on him” and summaries of reports CSIS made from numerous intercepted electronic communications.83
58. Also, as Justice Noël indicated, some of the allegations against Mr. Harkat were made public as a result of requests by the special advocates.84 These included the fact that Mr. Harkat had been in charge of Khattab’s guesthouse in Peshawar which serviced fighters travelling to and from training camps in Afghanistan, that he had worked for the same organisation as Ahmed Said Khadr, a well-known terrorist, and that he had had access to large sums of money after he came to Canada. Such disclosure allowed Mr. Harkat to respond, which ensured that the ultimate decision on the reasonableness of the certificate took into account both the Ministers’ allegations and Mr. Harkat’s response to those allegations. Thus, the allegations Justice Noël determined to be well-founded were ones to which Mr. Harkat had a fair opportunity to respond.
59. Mr. Harkat has previously argued that a different scheme ought to apply, such as in the s. 38 Canada Evidence Act scheme where a balancing of interests must take place when determining whether to provide disclosure of national security privileged information.85 However, Parliament considered that model and deliberately chose not to implement it notwithstanding some representations that favoured its adoption.86 In
81 Appeal Record, Tab 10, Harkat Constitutionality decision at para 138, see Exhibit M-15, Appeal Record, Vol 35, Tab 119, p 188 82 Appeal Record, Tab 10, Harkat Constitutionality decision at para 53 83 Appeal Record, Tab 11, Harkat Abuse of process decision at para 70 84 Appeal Record, Tab 10, Harkat Constitutionality decision at paras 27-29 85 Canada Evidence Act, RSC 1985 c C-5ss 38 86 Appeal Record, Tab 10, Harkat Constitutionality decision at para 159; MBA Tab 86, Craig Forcese and Lorne Waldman, “Comments on Bill C-3 (An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Certificate and Special Advocate) and to Make a C onsequential Amendment to Another Act)”, 1 November 2007; MBA Tab 92, Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, 39th Parl, 2nd Sess, SECU, No 005 (29 November 2007) (Professor Forcese and Mr. Waldman at House of Commons); MBA Tab 90 , House of Commons Debates, 39th Parl, 2nd Sess, Vol 142, No 044 (5 February 2008) (Hon. 18
addition, this Court itself has also considered the CEA model, noting that it did “not address the same problems” as the IRPA and was therefore of “limited assistance.”87
60. The process in the IRPA protects the rights of the named person while responding to the challenges that arise in the national security and immigration context. Parliament has chosen a process that protects information and evidence whose disclosure would be injurious to national security or endanger the safety of any person, while also providing for a substitute for full disclosure. Mr. Harkat is not entitled to any particular process, only one that satisfies the principles of fundamental justice.88
61. Justice Noël properly held that, taken together with the extensive summaries which had been provided to Mr. Harkat, the special advocates constituted an adequate and meaningful substitute for full disclosure.89 As Justice Noël stated, “Parliament has expressed its will.” 90 Its policy choice should be respected.
(iii) Challenging the Ministers’ case; decision on all of the facts and law
62. The special advocates challenged the information and evidence adduced in the closed hearings. T hey cross-examined witnesses in the closed proceeding to test the relevance, reliability and sufficiency of the evidence or the information.91 They made submissions on behalf of the named person on the issues before the Court, including the reasonableness of the certificate.92
63. Subsection 85.2(c) allows the special advocates to exercise, “with the judge’s authorization, any other powers that are necessary to protect the interests” of the named person. On this basis, the special advocates made extensive submissions on a variety of subjects to promote greater disclosure to themselves and public counsel, to limit redactions, and on various legal issues, including final submissions on the reasonableness
Ujjal Dosanjh); MBA Tab 93, Proceedings of the Special Senate Committee on Anti-Terrorism, 39th Parl, 2nd Sess, Issue 4 (11 February 2008) (Professor Forcese and Mr. Waldman at House of Commons) 87 MBA Tab 16, Charkaoui 1 at para 77; Appeal Record, Tab 10, Harkat Constitutionality decision para 161 88 MBA Tab 75, Rodgers, supra at para 47; MBA Tab 16, Charkaoui 1 at para 20 89 Appeal Record, Tab 10, Harkat Constitutionality decision at paras 141-143 90 Appeal Record, Tab 10, Harkat Constitutionality decision at para 162; MBA Tab 68, R v Mills, [1999] 3 SCR 668 at para 59 91 IRPA, ss 85.4 (1),(2) 92 IRPA, s 85.2 19
of the certificate. They were given access to entire human source files, employee files and other sensitive information. According to Justice Noël, “[s]ome of these motions…resulted in top secret judgments which were then redacted and made public. The special advocates therefore actively exercised all powers available in order to protect the interests of the named person.”93
64. These provisions individually and cumulatively ensured that Mr. Harkat’s interests were protected in the closed proceeding. Justice Noël concluded that the special advocates had performed their duties as Parliament had intended by ensuring that Mr. Harkat was apprised of the case against him and by defending his interests vigorously in the closed proceeding, which made the proceeding fair.94 This, in turn, permitted the designated judge to come to a decision based on all the relevant facts and law.95
65. In short, the legislative regime provides for the fair hearing that Mr. Harkat received, and one in which the designated judge could come to an informed decision.
(iv) Restrictions on Communications do not violate s. 7
66. The requirement that the special advocates may not communicate about the proceedings except with the authorization of the designated judge does not violate s. 7 of the Charter. S ince special advocates are entitled to have unrestricted communication with the named person before they receive the confidential materials, they are able to learn the named person’s story and his response to the allegations.
67. In February 2008, well in advance of the appointment of the special advocates, Mr. Harkat was served with a copy of the Public Summary of the Security Information Report, a document which contained the public version of the Ministers’ allegations.96 He was therefore aware of the Ministers’ allegations and was at liberty to discuss these with his special advocates when they were appointed on J une 4, 2008. P rehearing communication has been recognized as an effective and practical way of ensuring input
93 Appeal Record, Tab 10, Harkat Constitutionality decision at para 64 94 Appeal Record, Tab 10, Harkat Constitutionality decision at para 143 95 MBA Tab 16, Charkaoui 1 paras 64 and 65 96 Appeal Record, Tab 10, Harkat Constitutionality decision at para 50 20
into the process in the context of a Commission of Inquiry in which the protection of national security materials was also required.97
68. Further, the designated judge may authorize communication where he or she considers it ju stified.98 In this case, a number of directions and orders were granted allowing for communication between the special advocates and public counsel about certain factual allegations, about the consequences and implications of rulings including such matters as steps to be taken and legal submissions to be made, as well as about the scope of cross-examination.99 As Justice Noël noted, a majority of the requests to communicate were granted.100
69. The named person is entitled to continue to convey any information he wishes to the special advocates throughout the process without judicial authorization. T hus, as evidence is adduced in the open hearing or if additional disclosure is provided, the named person can provide whatever information he wishes to the special advocates to assist them to understand his position. M oreover, the named person can ask the special advocates to seek authorization to communicate with him.
70. Sections 85.4 a nd 85.5 w ere considered in both House and Senate Committee hearings when Bill C-3 was reviewed. A number of witnesses were opposed to the communication provisions on the basis that they would not “minimally” impair the rights of the persons concerned. Some favoured the Security Information Review Committee (SIRC) model as being preferable, because SIRC counsel occasionally communicate with the named person after the SIRC counsel has received the confidential information.101 However, a deliberate choice was made not to follow the SIRC model. The function of
97 MBA Tab 91, Internal Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Abdullah Almalki, et al, Ruling on terms of reference and procedure, May 31, 2007, at para 59, (Hon. Frank Iacobouuci) 98 MBA Tab 6, Re Almrei, 2008 FC 1216 at paras 99 -100; MBA Tabs 3-5, Almrei (14 November 2008), (12 December 2008), (27 January 2009), Doc No DES -03-08; MBA Tab 31, Jaballah (4 December 2008), DES-6-08 99 Appeal Record, Tab 23, Harkat (Re) 2009 FC 59; See also MBA Tab 30, Jaballah (20 November 2008), DES -6-08; MBA Tabs 37-39, Mahjoub (6 October 2008), (5 November 2008), (2 December 2008), DES 7-08 100 Appeal Record, Tab 10, Harkat Constitutionality decision, at para 139 and Appendix B; See Appeal Record, Tab 14, Harkat Appeal decision at para 116 101 MBA Tab 89, House of Commons Debates (Hansard), 39th Parl, 2nd Sess, Vol 142, No 019 (19 November 2007) 21
SIRC counsel is to assist SIRC, and not to protect the interests of the complainant in those proceedings. This is in contrast to the IRPA where the special advocate’s role is to protect the interests of the named person.102 As the Minister stated to the Special Senate Committee on Anti-Terrorism: “We wanted this to be a process clear of any possibility of a conflict of interest.”103
71. The Standing Committee on P ublic Safety and National Security also did not consider the SIRC model to be an appropriate option for the same reason.104 In his decision dismissing a constitutional challenge to these provisions, Chief Justice Lutfy noted that by contrast to the special advocate, who is independent of the Court, any communications between SIRC counsel and the complainant is under the explicit or implicit authority of the Review Committee member.105
72. Limiting communications about the proceedings reflects a concern that the special advocate might inadvertently disclose injurious information to the named person whose interests the special advocate is mandated to protect. Further, it is not speculative to conclude that named persons would try to find out the information. In fact, Parliamentary testimony from immigration counsel demonstrated that a named person and his counsel would try to deduce what the confidential information was through communications with someone with access to that information.106
73. In his testimony before the Special Senate Committee which was reviewing Bill C-3, the Minister of Public Safety explained the factors that had been considered in developing the special advocate model. Security certificates are rarely-used processes for serious grounds of inadmissibility. A special advocate would be permitted to review very sensitive materials, which could include information as to how a terrorist association’s information system was breached. There may be information from human sources, or
102 Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, R.S.C. 1985, c C-23 (“CSIS Act”), s 34 103 MBA Tab 93, Proceedings of the Special Senate Committee on Anti-terrorism, 39th Parl, 2nd Sess, Issue No 4 2007-08 See: (11 February 2008 and 12 February 2008) and at p 4:14 104 MBA Tab 92, Proceedings before the Standing Committee on PSNS: SECU, 39th Parl, 2nd Sess, No. 005 (29 November 2007) at pp. 6-7; See also: CSIS Act, s 34 105 MBA Tab 6, Almrei, 2008 FC 1216 at paras 43-52 106 MBA Tab 92, Standing Committee on PSNS: SECU, 39th Parl, 2nd Sess, No 004 (29 November 2007 am) at 6 (Lorne Waldman) 22
information from allied countries working with Canada to prevent terrorist organizations from bringing harm to Canada.107
74. The Minister noted that the special advocate could inadvertently divulge information in the course of discussions with that person. This could have very grave consequences where the individual has links to terrorist networks. To minimize such serious risks, contact must be limited after the special advocate has seen the confidential information. The scheme nevertheless permits the judge to order communication with conditions appropriate to minimize the risks. 108
(v) Test for admissibility of evidence
75. Consistent with other immigration proceedings, formal rules of evidence do not apply in security certificate proceedings.109 Section 83(1)(h) of IRPA provides for the admissibility of evidence even if it would not otherwise be admissible in a court of law, so long as it is both reliable and appropriate. In security certificate proceedings, information and evidence can be obtained from various national or international sources in different forms and may be in the form of a summary, an intelligence analysis or a simple reporting of events.110 The validity of ss. 83(1)(h) was not directly challenged by Mr. Harkat during the reasonableness hearing. Instead he took issue with the level of disclosure he received under the scheme. Justice Noël rejected this argument and concluded that the disclosure of national security information in this case was substantial and informative and that Mr. Harkat was aware of all the allegations made against him as well as much of the supporting information.111 2) Any alleged section 7 infringement saved by section 1
76. While the Ministers argue that s. 7 i s not breached, should this Court conclude otherwise, any infringement of the right is demonstrably justified.
107 MBA Tab 93, Proceedings of the Special Senate Committee on Anti-terrorism, 39th Parl, 2nd Sess, Issue No 4, 2007-08 (11 February 2008 and 12 February 2008) at pp 4:19 – 4:21 (Hon Stockwell Day) 108 IRPA, s 85.4(2) 109 See: IRPA, s 170(g)(h); s 171(a.2)(a.3); s 173(c)(d); and s 175(1)(b)(c) 110 Appeal Record, Tab 10, Harkat Constitutionality decision at para 57, paras 192-193; MBA Tab 7, Re Almrei 2009 FC 1263 at para 84 111 Appeal Record, Tab 10, Harkat Constitutionality decision at paras 194-195 23
77. A violation of a Charter right is justified where the infringing statute has a pressing and substantial objective and the means used to achieve it are proportional to the objective. S ection 1 m ust be applied in a flexible manner having regard to the policy considerations inherent in the factual and social context of each case.112 To satisfy the requirements of proportionality the state must demonstrate that: (a) the means chosen rationally is connected to the objective; (b) the means minimally impairs Charter protected rights; and (c) that the deleterious effects of the measure do not outweigh the public benefit of the measure.”113
78. The most pressing fundamental requirement and responsibility of a government is to provide security for its citizens. The objectives expressed in the IRPA indicate the intent to prioritize security114 and the security certificate provisions of the IRPA were carefully crafted to further this objective.115 This Court has repeatedly found that Canada’s national security and the protection of the related intelligence sources constitute pressing and substantial objectives and that the non-disclosure of evidence in security proceedings is rationally connected to the objectives of the IRPA.116
79. This Court held that the previous scheme more than minimally impaired the rights of the named person.117 The current scheme implements the special advocate model highlighted by this Court as better protecting those rights and successfully achieves the government’s legitimate aims in a manner that interferes as little as is possible, given the context, with the rights of the named person. It minimally impairs those rights.
80. The protection of sensitive information is balanced against the rights of the named person to a fair process and this is achieved by requiring that the named person be
112 MBA Tab 66, Malmo-Levine, supra at para 96; MBA Tab 78, RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 SCR 199 at para 132 113 MBA Tab 73, R v Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103 at 138-140; MBA Tab 2, Alberta v Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37, at paras 53, 62, 66, 72-78 and 100-103, [2009] 2 SCR 567; see also Appeal Record, Tab 10, Harkat Constitutionality decision at paras 209-217; MBA Tab 79, Ruby, supra at para 54 114 MBA Tab 43, Medovarski, supra at para 10 115 IRPA, ss 3(1)(h) and (i); Appeal Record, Tab 10, Harkat Constitutionality decision at para 213; MBA Tab 16, Charkaoui 1 at para 68 116 MBA Tab 16, Charkaoui 1, at para 68 117 MBA Tab 16, Charkaoui 1 at para 87 24
reasonably informed of the Ministers’ case and through the appointment of special advocates to protect the named person’s interests in the closed proceeding.
81. The United Kingdom118 and New Zealand119 also provide for special advocates in immigration proceedings where national security information must be protected. In the United States, a “special attorney” can be assigned to assist permanent residents in closed proceedings before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, when a summary of the classified information sufficient to enable him to prepare a defence cannot be provided,120 although that Court has never been convened. There are few requirements for the use of secret evidence in US immigration proceedings.121 In immigration courts, an alien will be informed when an immigration judge receives classified information ex parte and in camera, and the agency that submitted the information “may” provide an unclassified summary to the alien “whenever it determines it can do so consistently with safeguarding both the classified nature of the information and its source.”122
82. Australia does not use special advocates. The tribunal which reviews negative security assessments for permanent residents and protected persons123 can potentially exclude the applicant and his representative from closed material proceedings on national security or defence grounds.124 A non-citizen facing removal will not necessarily know
118 MBA Tab 103, Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 [UK], c 68, s 6; MBA Tab 104, SIAC (Procedure) Rules 2003 (UK), 2003/1034 (as am.), R 34-37, 43; MBA Tab 102, Justice and Security Act 2013 [UK], c. 18, – Royal Assent received 25 April, 2013, not yet in force. See also: MBA Tab 105, Terrorism Prevention and Investigations Measures Act 2011 [UK], c 23, Schedule 4; MBA Tab 106, The Civil Procedure [Amendment No 3] Rules 2011 [UK], 2011/ 2970 (L. 21), R 80.18 - 80.24 119MBA Tab 101, Immigration Act 2009, [NZ], 2009/ 5, ss 240-244, 263-270 120MBA Tab 107, Alien Terrorist Removal Procedures, 8 USC, Chapter 12, Subchapter V, sec 1531 et seq, 1532(e), 1534(e)(3)(F) (Immigration and Nationality Act) 121 MBA Tab 109, Immigration, 8 USC, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, sec 1229a (Immigration and Nationality Act); see also: MBA Tab 110, Jaya Ramji-Nogales, A Global approach to Secret Evidence: How Human Rights Law Can Reform Our Immigration System, 39 Colum. Hum. Rts L Rev 2008; MBA Tab 33, Jay v. Boyd, 351 U.S. 345 (1956); MBA Tab 34, Knauff v Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950) 122 MBA Tab 108, Code of Federal Regulations, 8 CFR, § 1240.11,(c) (3)(iv) 123 Access to merits review by the Security Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, see MBA Tab 96, Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979 (Cth), s 36(b), Part 4 (ASIO Act) 124 MBA Tab 96, ASIO Act, ss 36-38; MBA Tab 94, Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), ss 39A, 39B, Part 4; MBA Tab 35, Leghaei v Director General of Security, [2005] FCA 1576, at paras 20 - 21, affirmed [2007] FCAFC 37 25
125 all of the details of the case, or be able to test all of the evidence. In judicial review proceedings, including in the case of visa refusals or cancellations based on s ecurity grounds and in respect of the issuance of control orders by a Federal Magistrate, the Federal Court can hold closed material proceedings with security-cleared counsel. Non security-cleared counsel can be excluded from the closed proceedings.126
83. Mr. Harkat was reasonably informed of the essential elements of the Ministers’ case through the extensive disclosure of information which he received. The disclosure of summaries of factual evidence permitted him to know and respond to that case.127 In the open hearing, he called many expert witnesses all of whom challenged the Ministers’ case advancing contrary inferences or different interpretations of the Ministers’ information and evidence. This shows that Mr. Harkat’s right to know and respond to the Ministers’ allegations in a fair proceeding was minimally, if at all, impaired.
84. Requiring judicial authorization for communication guards against inadvertent revelation of sensitive information that must be protected. As Justice Noël noted, “the risk of inadvertent disclosure by the special advocates is not merely potential. Errors or slips may occur without intent.” Without judicial authorization, “it is more likely than not that there will be inadvertent disclosure.”128 Even an innocuous request for a document or clarification of a fact could trigger questions from colleagues and clients that might result in disclosure of information subject to national security confidentiality.129
85. In conclusion, the protection of information from disclosure that would put Canada’s national security and/or public safety at risk constitutes an important and
125 See: MBA Tab 100, Hon Justice Garry Downes AM, The Security Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Functions, Powers and Procedures, University of Sydney, Sept. 13, 2006, p 15; MBA Tab 98, Kent Roach, The 9/11 Effect: Comparative Counter-Terrorism, University of Toronto, 2011, p. 333; MBA Tab 83, Traljesic v Attorney-General (Cth), [2006] FCA 125, (2006) 150 FCR 199, at paras 22-31 126 MBA Tab 99, The National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (Cth), ss 3,4, 8, 15A, 31, 38I, 39A, Part 3A, (NSIA); see also: MBA Tab 97, Judiciary Act 1903(Cth), s 39B; MBA Tab 95, An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900, s 75v; and Criminal Code Act 1995, Schedule - The Criminal Code (Cth), Division 104, 105 127 Appeal Record, Tab 10, Harkat Constitutionality decision at para 134 128 Appeal Record, Tab 10, Harkat Constitutionality decision at para 220 129 MBA Tab 91, Internal Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in relation to Abdullah Almalki, et al., Ruling on terms of reference and procedure, May 31, 2007, at para 58, as quoted by the Designated Judge, MBA Tab 10, Harkat Constitutionality decision at para 220 26
substantial objective. There is a r ational connection between Parliament’s policy aims and the means chosen to achieve them. T he means chosen to protect information in security certificate proceedings – through provision of summaries to the named person and restrictions on communication by special advocates once they have seen such sensitive information – is proportional to Parliament’s stated objectives.
86. In light of the important policy goals at issue in the legislative scheme in Division 9 of the IRPA, any impairment of the s. 7 rights of the named person is outweighed by the vital importance of the preservation of national security and the safety of persons. The impact is proportionate. T he final proportionality factor in s. 1 r esolves in favour of upholding the legislative scheme. Any infringement of s. 7 is demonstrably justified.
D. NO ABUSE OF PROCESS, VIOLATION OF S. 7, OR NEED TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
87. The Court of Appeal erred in sending the security certificate back for re- determination. Absent palpable and overriding error, it was not entitled to disturb Justice Noël’s conclusion that the destruction of original CSIS materials did not prejudice Mr. Harkat. Justice Noël found that there was no abuse of process and rejected Mr. Harkat’s arguments that the destruction of the original materials rendered the hearing into the reasonableness of the security certificate an abuse of process. In the absence of prejudice, there was no violation of s. 7. The Court of Appeal erred in substituting its discretion for that of Justice Noël.
88. Moreover, even if exclusion of the evidence were appropriate, which is disputed, there was no need to return the matter to the designated judge for continued hearing. The Court of Appeal should have considered the relatively minor nature of the summaries of the intercepts it excluded, determined that they could not reasonably affect Justice Noël’s conclusion, and dismissed the appeal.130 Sending these protracted proceedings back for continuation was unnecessary and unwarranted.
130 Federal Courts Act, s 52(b)(i) 27
1) Court of Appeal misapplied Charkaoui 2
89. The Court of Appeal erroneously concluded that the destruction of the original materials in respect of certain intercepts per se constituted a breach of s. 7 of the Charter for which a remedy was required. It purported to rely on Charkaoui 2, to hold that this Court had recognized the existence of a duty to disclose and that the destruction of the original records constituted a breach of that duty, and therefore of s. 7. It went on t o assert that minimal prejudice or the absence of prejudice does not erase the breach and thus that a breach of the Charter mandates a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter, with prejudice to be addressed at the remedy stage. However, this Court did not conclude that the destruction of notes per se results in prejudice or that a remedy must be granted.
90. In Charkaoui 2, this Court found that the destruction of original operational notes in accordance with CSIS’s operational policy OPS 217 breached s. 12 of the CSIS Act. The Court noted the importance and utility of retaining original materials at various stages of the security certificate process from issuance to the assessment of reasonableness by the designated judge and concluded that there is a duty to retain this information in the case of targeted investigations of an individual or group.131
91. This Court made clear that it w as not suggesting that investigations which had been conducted in accordance with OPS 217 w ere unlawful. It is for the designated judge to assess the seriousness of the consequences, which would vary, in light of “all the information in his or her possession.” That the notes are unavailable because they were destroyed will be a “relevant factor but not determinative, in every case.”132
92. This Court declined to grant the stay of proceedings that Mr. Charkaoui sought based on the failure to retain and disclose operational notes. The Court noted that a stay is but one possible remedy and one of last resort, available only in the clearest of cases,
131 MBA Tab 17, Charkaoui 2 at paras 39-46 132 MBA Tab 17, Charkaoui 2 at para 46 28
and Charkaoui 2 was not such a case.133 It was premature considering that the appeal was from an interlocutory ruling and not from a finding of reasonableness.
93. This Court left it to the designated judge to determine how the destruction of the original materials affected the reliability of the evidence. “If he concludes that there is a reasonable basis for the security certificate but that the destruction of the notes had a prejudicial effect, he will then consider whether Mr. Charkaoui should be granted a remedy. [...] The only appropriate remedy is to confirm the duty to disclose Mr. Charkaoui’s entire file to the designated judge and, after the judge has filtered it, to Mr. Charkaoui and his counsel."134
94. Thus, this Court did not conclude that the destruction of original materials per se results in prejudice or that a remedy must necessarily be granted. The Court of Appeal erred in presuming that a remedy was mandated when this Court found otherwise.135
2) Court of Appeal improperly interfered with Judge's assessment of prejudice
95. The Court of Appeal erred in substituting its assessment of prejudice for that of Justice Noël since this Court left that task to the designated judge at the end of the reasonableness hearing. I n Charkaoui 2, this Court directed that after receiving and considering all the evidence, the designated judge was to assess what prejudicial effect, if any, the destruction of the notes had on the case. E ven in the case of prejudice, the designated judge was to determine whether a remedy should be granted.136
96. Decisions of lower courts on the exclusion of evidence are entitled to significant deference.137 Yet, the Court of Appeal failed to engage in any standard of review analysis before overturning Justice Noël’s findings of fact that Mr. Harkat had not suffered prejudice.
133 MBA Tab 17, Charkaoui 2 at para 76, citing R v O’Connor, [1995] 4 SCR 411 at para 82; see also MBA Tab 62, R v La, [1997] 2 SCR 680, 1997 CanLII 309 (SCC) at para 23 134 MBA Tab 17, Charkaoui 2 at paras 74-77 135 MBA Tab 17, Charkaoui 2 at para 46 136 MBA Tab 17, Charkaoui 2 at para 77 137 MBA Tab 59, R v Côté, 2011 SCC 46, [2011] 3 SCR 215 at paras 43-48; MBA Tab 53, R v Beaulieu, 2010 SCC 7, at para 5, [2010] 1 SCR 248; MBA Tab 67, R v Mann, 2004 SCC 52, at paras 51-60, [2004] 3 SCR 59; MBA Tab 58, R v Buhay, 2003 SCC 30, at paras 41-48, [2003] 1 SCR 631 29
97. Justice Noël heard evidence and made specific findings in both the closed and public proceedings on CSIS’s methods and procedures, pre-Charkaoui 2, for transcribing original recordings and interview notes into reports.138 That evidence was tested on cross- examination in both the closed and public proceedings. Justice Noël accepted this evidence and concluded that the reports of the original recordings and interview notes provided to the Court and to the special advocates, the summaries of which were given to Mr. Harkat, accurately reflected the contents of the destroyed originals and were reliable. Mr. Harkat had not been prejudiced by destruction of the original materials. 139
98. The Court of Appeal cursorily dismissed as "general" and lacking in specificity evidence that Justice Noel had accepted.140 Yet, in the case of remedies under s. 24(1) of the Charter, such orders should only be disturbed if the trial judge misdirects himself or if his decision is so clearly wrong as to amount to an injustice.”141 The Court of Appeal falls far short of showing that this test is met.
99. Justice Noël carefully addressed whether CSIS’s destruction of the original recordings of conversations and interview notes involving Mr. Harkat had prejudicially affected his ability to know and meet the case against him. He considered this Court’s direction as to whether a remedy should be granted.142 After an extensive review of the materials before him, he concluded that the destruction did not impinge on Mr. Harkat’s ability to know and meet the case and that there was no need for any remedy.143 That conclusion was reasonably open to him and ought to have been respected.
100. Although it also held a closed hearing and had a classified record before it, the Court of Appeal did not issue a closed judgment, nor did it even refer to the closed evidence accepted by Justice Noël on t he issue of the reliability of the summaries. It ignored his considerable familiarity with the evidence, and his expertise in all facets of
138 Appeal Record, Tab 11, Harkat Abuse of process decision at paras 62-66 139 Appeal Record, Tab 11, Harkat Abuse of process decision at paras 62-76 140 Appeal Record, Tab 14, Harkat Appeal Decision at paras 134-135 141 MBA Tab 74, R v Regan, 2002 SCC 12, 2002 SCC 12, at para 117, [2002] 1 SCR 297; MBA Tab 54, R v Bellusci, 2012 SCC 44 at para 17 citing R v Regan; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Tobiass, [1997] 3 SCR 391, at para 87 142 MBA Tab 17, Charkaoui 2 at para 77; Appeal Record, Tab 11, Harkat Abuse of process decision paras 74-75 143 Appeal Record, Tab 11, Harkat Abuse of process decision at para 76 30
the proceeding. Instead of assessing whether there was a “palpable and overriding error”, the appellate judges impermissibly substituted their own view.144 Absent palpable and overriding error, Justice Noel’s findings on prejudice and the need for a remedy should not have been overturned.145 3) Actual prejudice required to show Charter breach - no prejudice, no unfairness, no need to exclude evidence
101. Further, the loss or destruction of information or evidence does not per se constitute a breach of s. 7 of the Charter. The requirement of actual prejudice has been explained in several cases involving the loss of evidence, including complainant statements146 or the death of witnesses.147 In canvassing the requirements of this “heavy” burden148 albeit in the criminal law context, the courts have made it clear that there is no automatic breach of the right to full answer and defence by simply showing that the accused was deprived of relevant information.149 Even in criminal cases, an accused must establish actual prejudice to his right to a fair trial, bearing “in mind that the accused is entitled to a trial that is fundamentally fair and not the fairest of all possible trials.”150
102. Actual prejudice occurs when the accused is unable to put forward his or her defence due to the lost evidence and not simply when it is more difficult to do s o.151 Thus non-disclosure arising out of the destruction of investigative material is only inconsistent with s. 7 of the Charter if actual prejudice to the person’s right to a fair hearing is shown.152 The Court of Appeal erred in finding that s. 7 was violated in light of Justice Noël’s conclusion that Mr. Harkat was not prejudiced by the destruction of the original materials and given that reliable summaries were available.
144 Appeal Record, Tab 14, Harkat Appeal Decision, at para 141 145 MBA Tab 29, Housen, supra at paras 10-37; See: MBA Tab 24, HL, supra at paras 8-9, 16, 52-76; and MBA Tab 47, Poshteh, supra at paras 16-25 146 MBA Tab 56, R v Bradford (2001), 52 OR (3d) 257 (CA) at paras 7-8 147 MBA Tab 46, Ontario (Ministry of Labour) v Lee Valley Tools, 2009 ONCA 387 at paras 22-27, 32 148 MBA Tab 9, Blencoe v BC (Human Rights Commission), 2000 SCC 44 at paras 117 and 178 149 MBA Tab 56, Bradford, supra at para 7, citing R v Mills, 1999 CanLII 637, [1999] 3 SCR 668 at paras 73- 76 [Mills], in turn citing R v La, supra at para 25; see also MBA Tab 46, Lee Valley Tools, supra at para 23 150 MBA Tab 56, Bradford, supra at para 6, citing O’Connor, supra at para 193 151 MBA Tab 56, Bradford, supra at para 8, cited in Lee Valley Tools, supra at para 25 152 MBA Tab 62, R v La, supra at para 25; MBA Tab 55, R v Bjelland, 2009 SCC 38 at para 21 31
103. In La, this Court held that in criminal cases where the Crown has not met its disclosure obligations, an accused must still demonstrate actual prejudice to his or her right to make full answer and defence to ground a s. 7 breach based on lost evidence.153 The same standard applies for the Court to find an abuse of process in lost evidence cases. Loss or destruction of evidence does not result in an automatic Charter breach.154
104. Moreover, Mr. Harkat’s arguments asserting prejudice are dubious in light of his own evidence about the summarized conversations. He agreed with the general accuracy of summaries of his conversations with family and friends but disputed certain other conversations. His objection was not to the accuracy of the summaries per se, but rather, he offered blanket denials of even knowing, much less speaking with those individuals. He had a fair opportunity to proffer his response to the evidence and gave bald denials. A transcript could not have assisted him any more than the summary in light of his position. Indeed, these materials “could well have supported the Crown’s case.”155
105. The issue is whether the destruction of the recordings deprived Mr. Harkat of the right to know the case against him. Non-disclosure or incomplete disclosure in national security cases, or any other case, does not automatically result in a s. 7 violation.156 What is key is whether the disclosure he did receive preserved the fairness of the proceedings. Justice Noël carefully considered the relevant principles and determined that there was no prejudice. The Court of Appeal’s interference with his decision was unwarranted.
4) Remedy
106. Alternatively, should this Court conclude that a remedy ought to have been granted, the Ministers dispute Mr. Harkat’s assertion that all of the summaries ought to have been excluded, including summaries of conversations in which Mr. Harkat had participated. As this Court reasoned in Charkaoui 2 when commenting on the issue of
153 MBA Tab 62, R v La, supra at paras 24-25 154 MBA Tab 61, R. v JP, 2009 ONCA 850 at para 7 [JP] 155 MBA Tab 46, Lee Valley Tools, supra at para 29 156 MBA Tab 16, Charkaoui 1 at paras 58-59; MBA Tab 17, Charkaoui 2 at paras 56, 62; MBA Tab 49, R v Ahmad, 2009 CanLII 84778 (ON SC) at para 30; MBA Tab 11, Canada (Justice) v. Khadr, 2008 SCC 28, at paras 4, 37-41 [2008] 2 SCR 125 [Khadr I]; MBA Tab 82, Suresh, supra at para 122; MBA Tab 79, Ruby, supra at para 46 32
prejudice in relation to late disclosure of evidence of Mr. Charkaoui’s interviews, since “it was Mr Charkaoui himself who had been questioned in the interviews ... [h]e therefore had knowledge of the subject and doubtless knew what he had said on that occasion.”157
107. Lastly, the Court of Appeal erred in granting the appeal and in sending the matter back to the designated judge on the basis of the exclusion of some summaries. The effect of this order was to exclude the summaries of only two conversations. These were not significant in the face of Justice Noël’s numerous other findings that overwhelmingly supported the reasonableness of the certificate on the remaining allegations, particularly since a certificate will be upheld as reasonable so long as one ground of inadmissibility is established.158 Of the excluded conversations, one related to Mr. Harkat's gambling, drinking and misuse of money that had been wired to him from Saudi Arabia.159 The other pertained to only one of the various organizations he was found to be linked with.
108. These two summaries could not overcome the many determinative conclusions Justice Noël drew upholding the remaining allegations. T he determination of inadmissibility and thus the reasonableness of the certificate were easily supported by Justice Noël’s other findings and should have been maintained by the Court of Appeal.
E. “SEARCHING REVIEW” – NO ERROR IN ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE
109. The appropriate standard for designated judges to apply when reviewing whether the named person is inadmissible under the IRPA remains “reasonable grounds to believe.”160 Mr. Harkat does not challenge this, but instead disputes Justice Noël’s assessment of the evidence. However, there is no pa lpable or overriding error in the findings establishing the reasonableness of the security certificate.161 It was for Justice
157 MBA Tab 17, Charkaoui 2 at para 67 158 MBA Tab 85, Zündel, supra at para 15 159 Exhibit M-7 Tab K at p. 156, Appeal Record, Vol 34, Tab 104, p 3; Appeal Record, Tab 9, Re Harkat Reasonableness decision at paras 2-13, 255-257, 274 160 MBA Tab 45, Mugesera v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 2 SCR 100 at paras 114-116; MBA Tab 16, Charkaoui 1 at para 39; MBA Tab 19, Chiau v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 FC 297 (CA) at para 68, leave to appeal refused 286 N.R. 199 (note), [2001] SCCA No 71 (SCC Aug 16, 2001) 161 MBA Tab 29, Housen, supra at paras 5-6, 26-28, 32-36; MBA Tab 23, FH v McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, at para 55 33
Noel to assess the evidence as to reliability and cogency. The existence of conflicting evidence, which Justice Noël himself acknowledged and considered, did not entitle Mr. Harkat to a favourable outcome.
110. In Charkaoui 1, this Court stated that designated judges are to engage in a “searching review” of the reasonableness of the certificate on the material placed before them.162 This Court’s reference to a “searching review” did not create a new, separate, or higher standard for the assessment of evidence in inadmissibility cases in the security certificate context, nor did it suggest that there are legally recognized different levels of scrutiny of the evidence depending on the seriousness of the case. Notably, such a notion was categorically rejected by this Court even in the civil context governed by the common law as opposed to by statute as in the security certificate context.163
111. In Charkaoui 1, the phrase “searching review” was used to describe the degree of deference to be applied by designated judges when reviewing the Ministers’ decision to sign a security certificate, specifically, a non-deferential standard. This Court recognized that designated judges have adopted a non-deferential role in security certificate proceedings, since even before this Court’s decision in Charkaoui 1.164
112. Justice Noël carefully scrutinized the evidence, acknowledged competing evidence and applied the correct standard for determining whether the certificate is reasonable.165 The Court of Appeal expressed no basis for intervening in Justice Noël’s assessment and evaluation of the evidence.166 Mr. Harkat simply takes issue with the manner in which Justice Noël weighed the evidence, and absent any indication of palpable and overriding error, there is no basis to intervene in his decision on this ground.
162 MBA Tab 16, Charkaoui 1 at para 38-39 163 MBA Tab 23, FH v McDougall, supra at para 45-48 164 MBA Tab 16, Charkaoui 1 at para 38-39, 42; See also: MBA Tab 32, Jaballah (Re), 2010 FC 79 at para 34; MBA Tab 40, Mahjoub (Re), 2009 FC 1220 at para 42 165 Appeal Record, Tab 9, Harkat Reasonableness decision 166 Appeal Record, Tab 14, Harkat Appeal Decision at para 153 34
F. HUMAN SOURCE / INFORMER ISSUES
113. CSIS informers need the same high level of protection other informers enjoy. The Court of Appeal erred in rejecting Justice Noël’s holding that CSIS sources enjoy the benefit of a class privilege, not a case-by-case balancing of interests.
1) CSIS Human Sources are protected by a Class Privilege
114. The Court of Appeal rejected what it felt was the “creation” of a new class privilege, largely on the basis that such a “new” privilege would be inconsistent with Parliament’s intent in enacting ss. 77(2), 83(1)(c), (d) and (e) of the IRPA.167 Those provisions, however, say nothing explicitly or implicitly about informer privilege. The privilege recognized by Justice Noël is by no means “new,” and the IRPA cannot reasonably be read as intending to abrogate it.
2) Scope of the Common Law Rule
115. The Court of Appeal’s decision is at odds with the common law. It narrowly construed the informer privilege as one attaching only to police or peace officers.168 It erroneously interpreted this Court’s holding in the Health Records case that the privilege “has even greater justification in relation to the protection of national security”169 as applying only to police investigations of national security offences,170 ignoring the fact the Health Records decision pre-dates the creation of CSIS. In Chiarelli, this Court placed the privilege in respect of national security matters on the same footing as that in criminal investigations.171 In the national security context, the rule is well-established in the United Kingdom172 and the U.S.A.,173 has been recently recognized by the Ontario Court of Appeal,174 and has been applied in an anti- terrorism prosecution.175
167 Appeal Record, Tab 14, Harkat Appeal Decision at para 94 168 Appeal Record, Tab 14, Harkat Appeal Decision at para 91 169 MBA Tab 80, Solicitor General of Canada et al v Royal Commission of Inquiry into the confidentiality of Health Records in Ontario (“Health Records”), [1981] 2 SCR 494 at 537 170 Appeal Record, Tab 14, Harkat Appeal Decision at para 91 171 MBA Tab 18, Chiarelli, supra at 744-745 172 R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Hosenball, [1977] 3 All ER 452 at 460 as quoted in Chiarelli, supra at 744-745, MBA Tab 18 173 MBA Tab 20, CIA v Sims, 471 US 159 (1985), at 174-177; MBA Tab 44, Mohamed v Jeppesen Dataplan, 614 F 3d 1070 at 1086 (9thCir2010) at 1086 174 MBA Tab 69, R v NY, 2012 ONCA 745, at para 122 175 MBA Tab 49, R v Ahmad, 2009 CanLII 84778 (ON SC), at paras 69-72, 80, 85, 87, 89 35
116. Informer privilege has never been restricted to police officers pursuing criminal investigations, nor regarded as a rule restricted to criminal proceedings. The privilege has been applied with equal force to protect informers of other types of investigative agencies,176 and applied in proceedings other than criminal proceedings.177
117. Informer privilege is a rule of law animated by two principles: the need to protect people who provide sensitive information, and the need to encourage others to do t he same.178 There is nothing “new” about its application to CSIS informers: it simply involves recognizing that the CSIS/informer relationship is within the same category of relationships that must be “sedulously fostered”.179 Because of the singular importance of the privilege to the administration of justice, this Court has repeatedly held that it is a class privilege.180 As this Court recognized in R. v. Barros, “[a] more flexible rule that would leave disclosure up to the discretion of the individual trial judge would rob informers of that assurance and sap their willingness to cooperate.”181 Or, as the U.S. Supreme Court put it, leaving disclosure to individual judges would cause national security sources to “close up like a clam.”182 3) The IRPA did not Abrogate the Common Law Rule
118. Whether the privilege found by Justice Noël should be regarded as existing, “new,” or an “extension,” the Court of Appeal erred in ascribing to Parliament an intention to make it a case-by-case privilege in IRPA proceedings. That judgment cannot be justified by any of the conventional means of determining legislative intent, such as
176 MBA Tab 36, MA c Drapeau et Commission de valeurs immobilieres du Nouveau-brunswick, 2012 NBCA 73(securities commission investigator); MBA Tab 21, D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, [1977] AC 171 (child protection authorities); MBA Tab 64, R v Lewes Justices, Ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department [1973] AC 388 at 401 (gaming board); MBA Tab 41, Mahon and Another v Rahn and others (No 2), [2000] 1 WLR 2150 (financial regulators); MBA Tab 77, Rice v Canada (National Parole Board) (1985), 16 Admin LR 157(FC) (parole officers) 177 MBA Tab 80, Health Records, supra, (Royal Commission); MBA Tab 8, Bisaillon v Keable [1983] 2 SCR 60 (public inquiry); MBA Tab 42, Marks v Beyfus (1890), 25 QBD 494 (civil litigation) 178 MBA Tab 63, R v Leipert, [1997] 1 SCR 281 at 289-290, 293; MBA Tab 51, R v Barros, 2011 SCC 51, [2011] 3 SCR 368, at para 28; MBA Tab 81, St Elizabeth Home Society v Hamilton (City) 2008 ONCA 182, (2008), 291 DLR (4th) 338, 230 CCC (3d) 199 (Ont CA), at para 32 179 MBA Tab 60, R v Gruenke, [1991] 3 SCR 263 at 284, 289-291; MBA Tab 81, St Elizabeth Home Society, supra at para 32 180 MBA Tab 63, R v Leipert, supra at 291-292; MBA Tab 52, R v Basi, 2009 SCC 52 at 400-401, [2009] 3 SCR 389 181 MBA Tab 51, R v Barros, supra, at para 30 182 MBA Tab 20, CIA v Sims, supra at 175 36
considering the text of the provisions, statements of Ministers or government officials in Parliamentary proceedings, or the general purposes of the IRPA reforms that enacted the sections.
119. The four IRPA provisions identified by the Court of Appeal – ss.77(2), 83(1)(c), (d) and (e) -- all deal with the duties of the Minister and the judge to ensure that no information be disclosed in the proceedings that would be injurious to national security, and to prevent unwarranted disclosure of sensitive materials.. But nothing about any provision evinces an intention to affect any existing privilege. Nor should they be read to derogate from the strong proscription against disclosure of informer information in s. 18 of the CSIS Act.183 By way of contrast, where Parliament intended to affect solicitor- client privilege in the same reform bill, it did so explicitly.184
120. The Court of Appeal justified its reluctance to recognize a cl ass privilege by purporting to apply this Court’s judgment in National Post, where Binnie J. stated that new “class” privileges should be legislative creations.185 However, the Court of Appeal should have been guided by Binnie J.’s reasons in Blood Tribe, where this Court accepted that abrogation of a privilege important to the administration of justice [solicitor-client, in that case] must be done in “clear, precise and unequivocal language.”186 By contrast, in the CSIS Act, where Parliament gave the Security Intelligence Review Committee access to CSIS information, it stated that such access would be given “[n]otwithstanding any other Act of Parliament or any privilege under the law of evidence.”187
121. Moreover, in this Court’s decision in R. v. Basi, informer privilege was litigated under s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act, which specifically provides in s. 37(5) for the sort of case-by-case balancing of interests that the Court of Appeal favoured. Nevertheless, this Court found that informer privilege was not amenable to balancing.188
183 CSIS Act, s18 184 IRPA, s 85.1(3) and (4) 185 MBA Tab 71, R v National Post, [2010] 1 SCR 477 at para 42 186 MBA Tab 14, Canada (Privacy Commissioner) v Blood Tribe Department of Health, [2008] 2 SCR 574 at 593-594 187 CSIS Act, s 39(2) 188 MBA Tab 52, R v Basi, supra at para 22 37
122. The legislative provisions relied on by the Court of Appeal were enacted in a bill that was a focused response to this Court’s decision in Charkaoui 1.189 Apart from a passing reference to human sources in a speech at third reading,190 there was no indication that the reforms were intended to affect human sources at all, much less abrogate a hallowed privilege.
123. Even if it were necessary to justify a CSIS informer/human source privilege as a wholly new class privilege, it could be easily done. Justice Noël summarized the evidence he had heard in closed proceedings before concluding human sources are “essential national security assets.”191 The Macdonald Commission recognized their utility in security intelligence operations,192 and a recent American study has found that informers are “the most effective counterterrorism tool for breaking up dom estic plots.”193 The importance of this privilege was obvious to Justice Noël, who held that the four Wigmore criteria for the creation of a privilege were satisfied.194
124. Finally, this Court noted in Charkaoui 2 that “the activities of the RCMP and those of CSIS have in some respects been converging.”195 Failure to recognize a cl ass privilege for CSIS human sources would lead to the following absurdity. Where CSIS begins a n ational security investigation that leads the Service to advise the RCMP that criminal offences are being planned, and CSIS’s informer agrees to work with the RCMP, in any subsequent prosecution the informer would have less protection for his CSIS activities than his RCMP activities. That the two organizations sometimes share informers in this manner is apparent from the “Toronto 18” antiterrorism prosecution.196
189 MBA Tab 88, House of Commons Debates, 39th Parl, 2nd Sess, Vol 142, No 009 (26 October 2007) (Mr. Dave Mackenzie, Parl Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety) 190 MBA Tab 90, House of Commons, Debates, 39th Parl, 2nd Sess, Vol 142, No 044 (5 February 2008) (Mr. David Mackenzie, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety) 191 Appeal Record, Tab 3, Harkat Informer privilege decision at para 24 192 Quoted in Appeal Record, Tab 3, Harkat Informer privilege decision at para 25 193 MBA Tab 87, Eric J Dahl, “Plots that Failed: Intelligence Lessons Learned from Unsuccessful Terrorist Attacks Against the United States”, 34 Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 621 at 629-630 194 Appeal Record, Tab 3, Harkat Informer privilege decision at para 31 195 MBA Tab 17, Charkaoui 2 at para 26 196 See the facts detailed in MBA Tab 48, R v Ahmad, 2009 CanLII 84776 (ON SC), at para 55; cf MBA Tab 70, R v Named Person B, 2013 SCC 9, at paras 20-37 38
4) Should there be an Exception to this Class Privilege?
125. The Court of Appeal’s rejection of a class privilege for CSIS informers made it unnecessary to determine whether any exception existed. Noël J. held that in security certificate proceedings there should be a “need to know” exception, applying “where evidence is adduced demonstrating that the identity of the covert human intelligence source must be disclosed to prevent a flagrant breach of procedural justice.”197 Disclosure, should the exception be made out, would be to the special advocates.198
126. The only recognized exception to the informer privilege is “innocence at stake” in criminal proceedings. T his Court has held that there are no exceptions outside of criminal proceedings,199 so there should not be one in security certificate proceedings. In the alternative, any exception should be a very narrow one, based on the need to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
127. Justice Noël's creation of a “need to know” exception was based on t he importance of certificate proceedings to an individual’s liberty interests. Relying on this Court’s Charkaoui decisions, he crafted an exception aimed at ensuring fair procedures. However, the “innocence at stake” exception is not one that is predicated on procedural fairness, but one that aims to prevent an unjust outcome.
128. The difficulty with the “need to know” exception became apparent when Justice Noël decided to apply it. During the proceedings, the Ministers discovered they had failed to disclose certain material relevant to the credibility of one informer. The remedy imposed was to order disclosure of the entire informer file, including the informer’s identity.200 Justice Noël reasoned that complete disclosure was necessary to avoid bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.201
197 Appeal Record, Tab 3, Harkat Informer privilege decision at para 46 198 Appeal Record, Tab 7, Re Harkat 2009 FC 1050 (Polygraph decision) at paras 68-71 199 MBA Tab 63, R v Leipert [1997], 1 SCR 281 at 295; MBA Tab 8, Bissaillon v Keable [1983] 2 SCR 60 at 93 200 Appeal Record, Tab 3, Harkat Informer privilege decision at paras 70-71 201 Appeal Record, Tab 3, Harkat Informer privilege decision at para 14 39
129. Notwithstanding the Ministers’ consent to disclosure during the closed proceedings, the remedy went too far, demonstrating the over-breadth of the exception. The ordinary remedy for a failure to disclose information is to order disclosure.202 Where information useful to testing the informer’s reliability had not been disclosed, the special advocates were entitled to see it. To disclose the entire file is to impose a remedy that significantly overshoots the mark, to the detriment of the informer’s vital interests.
130. Disclosure of the whole file was not needed to restore balance to the process. The innocence at stake exception has never been about process, in the sense of enhancing the ability of the defence to challenge the case against an accused; it is about avoiding a miscarriage of justice, i.e. a wrongful conviction. The test is stringent, and the judge’s duty is to minimize disclosure.203
131. Accordingly, should this Court be satisfied that there is a need to create an exception in security certificate proceedings, it should be the functional equivalent of innocence at stake, i.e. necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
5) Should the Special Advocates have a Right to Cross-examine Informers?
132. Section 83(1)(h) of the IRPA gives the judge in security certificate proceedings the power to rely on any evidence the judge feels is “reliable and appropriate,” “even if it is inadmissible in a court of law.” The section clearly contemplates the possibility of giving evidentiary weight to hearsay, but nothing about it or related provisions manifests a “clear, precise and unequivocal” intention204 to weaken the informer privilege. Justice Noël thus properly rejected the contention that special advocates should be able to cross- examine informers.205
133. A similar type of claim was made in R. v. Basi, where the trial judge had permitted defence counsel to participate in an in camera hearing to determine the validity of a claim of informer privilege, upon undertakings that they would not share the identity
202 MBA Tab 72, R v O’Connor, supra at para 76 203 MBA Tab 57, R v Brown, [2002] 2 SCR 185 at paras 3 and 81 204 MBA Tab 14, Canada (Privacy Commissioner) v Blood Tribe Department of Health, supra at para 26 205 Appeal Record, Tab 3, Harkat Informer privilege decision at paras 58-71 40
of the informer with their clients.206 This Court held that such a procedure “exposed the privilege to imminent demise,” and that “[n]o one outside the circle of privilege may access information over which the privilege has been claimed until a judge has determined that the privilege does not exist or that an exception applies.”207
134. This Court “has repeatedly recognized that national security considerations can limit the extent of disclosure of information to the affected individual,”208 even in criminal cases.209 One of those considerations is to ensure the continued flow of valuable information from informers; that would be by no means a certainty if the guarantee of confidentiality by CSIS did not extend to courtroom testimony.
135. Justice Noël struck a fair balance between national security and the rights of the named person without permitting cross-examination of informers. He ordered generous disclosure of material to the special advocates concerning the credibility of informers and the information they supplied.210 He allowed cross-examination of CSIS witnesses on the value, reliability and usefulness of informer information.211 In some circumstances, he relied on i nformer information only where it had been corroborated.212 There is no evidence that cross-examination of informers was needed to make these proceedings fair.
PART IV – COSTS
136. The Ministers do not seek any order of costs.
PART V – NATURE OF ORDER SOUGHT
137. That this Court grant the Ministers’ appeal and reinstate Justice Noël’s determination that the certificate is reasonable.
206 MBA Tab 52, R v Basi, supra at paras 6-11 207 MBA Tab 52, R v Basi, supra at paras 4 and 44 208 MBA Tab 16, Charkaoui 1 at para 58 209 MBA Tab 50, R v Ahmad, [2011] 1 SCR 110, at para 7 210 Appeal Record, Tab 9, Harkat Reasonableness decision at para 35 211 Appeal Record, Tab 3, Harkat Informer privilege decision at para 64-71 212 Appeal Record, Tab 9, Harkat Reasonableness decision, footnotes 1 and 2 41
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Dated at Toronto this 21st day of May 2013.
______Urszula Kaczmarczyk Robert Frater Marianne Zoric Andre Seguin
Of Counsel for the Ministers
NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENT
Pursuant to subsection 44(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, this appeal will be inscribed by the Registrar for hearing after the Respondent’s Factum has been filed or on t he expiration of the time period set out in paragraph 38(3)(b) of the said Rules, as the case may be. 42
PART VI – TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
A. JURISPRUDENCE CITATION Cited at Paragraph Ahani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 47 2, [2002] 1 SCR 72 Alberta v Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37, [2009] 2 77 SCR 567 Almrei (Re) (14 November 2008), Ottawa, DES-3-08 (FC) 68 Almrei (Re) (12 December 2008), Ottawa, DES-3-08 (FC) 68 Almrei (Re) (27 January 2009), Ottawa, DES-3-08 (FC) 68 Almrei (Re), 2008 FC 1216, [2009] 3 FCR 497 68, 71 Almrei (Re), 2009 FC 1263, [2011] 1 FCR 163 43, 75
Bissaillon v Keable, [1983] 2 SCR 60 116, 126
Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), 2000 SCC 101 44, [2000] 2 SCR 307 Canada (Attorney General) v Almalki, 2011 FCA 199, [2012] 2 FCR 24 594 Canada (Justice) v Khadr, 2008 SCC 28, [2008] 2 SCR 125 105
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Singh, [1998] FCJ 50 No 1147, 151 FTR 101 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Tobiass, [1997] 3 98 SCR 391 Canada (Privacy Commissioner) v Blood Tribe Department of Health, 120, 132 2008 SCC 44, [2008] 2 SCR 574 Chahal v United Kingdom, [1996] ECHR 54, 23 EHRR 413 52 Charkaoui v Canada (Citizenship & Immigration) 2007 SCC 9, [2007] 6, 44, 45, 46, 51, 1 SCR 350 52, 53, 54, 59, 60, 64, 78, 79, 105, 109, 110, 111, 134
Charkaoui v Canada (Citizenship & Immigration), 2008 SCC 38, 10, 25, 47, 51, 90, [2008] 2 SCR 326 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 99, 105, 106, 124 Chiarelli v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 47, 48, 115 1 SCR 711 Chiau v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 109 F.C. 297 (FCA) Leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2001] SCCA No 71, 286 NR 199 CIA v Sims, 471 U.S. 159 (1985) 115, 117 43
D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, [1977] 116 UKHL 1, [1977] AC 171 Deacon v Canada (Attorney General), 2006 FCA 265, [2007] 2 FCR 50 607, (leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2006] SCCA no 319) FH v McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, [2008] 3 SCR 41 109, 110
HL v Canada (A.G), 2005 SCC 25, [2005] 1 SCR 401 31, 100
Hampel (Re), (December 6, 2006), Ottawa, DES-3-06 47 Harkat (Re), 2005 FC 393 5, 17 Harkat (Re), 2009 FC 59 68 Harkat (Re), 2009 FC 204, [2009] 4 FCR 370 20, 21, 123, 125, 128, 132, 135 Harkat (Re), 2009 FC 241 13 Harkat (Re), 2009 FC 553 22 Harkat (Re), 2009 FC 1008 13 Harkat (Re), 2009 FC 1050 125
Harkat (Re), 2010 FC 1241 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 25, 107, 112, 135
Harkat (Re), 2010 FC 1242 8, 9, 13, 18, 51, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 63, 64, 67, 68, 75, 77, 78, 83, 84 Harkat (Re), 2010 FC 1243 12, 19, 57, 97, 99 Harkat v Canada (Citizenship & Immigration), 2012 FCA 122 23, 24, 25, 26, 68, 98, 100, 112, 114, 115 Housen v Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 SCR 235 31, 100, 109
Jaballah (Re) (20 November 2008), Ottawa, DES-6-08 (FC) 68 Jaballah (Re) (4 December 2008), Toronto, DES-6-08 (FC) 68 Jaballah (Re), 2010 FC 79, [2011] 2 FCR 145 111 Jay v Boyd, 351 US 345 (1956) 81 Knauff v Shaughnessy, 338 US 537 (1950) 81 Leghaei v Director General of Security, [2005] FCA 1576, affirmed 82 [2007] FCAFC 37 M.A. c Drapeau et la Commission des valeurs mobilières du Nouveau- 116 Brunswick, 2012 NBCA 73 (CanLII) Mahjoub (Re) (6 October 2008), Fredericton, DES-7-08 (FC) 68 Mahjoub (Re) (5 November 2008), Toronto, DES 7-08 (FC) 68 Mahjoub (Re) (2 December 2008), Ottawa, DES-7-08 (FC) 68 Mahjoub (Re), 2009 FC 1220 111 44
Mahon and Another v Rahn and Others(No 2), [2000] EWCA Civ 185, 116 [2000] 1 WLR 2150 Marks v Beyfus, (1890) 25 QBD 494 116 Medovarski v Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration); 48, 78 Esteban v Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2005 SCC 51, [2005] 2 SCR 539 Mohamed et al v Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., No. 08-15693, July10, 2008 115 (9th Cir 2008) Mugesera v Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2005 109 SCC 40, [2005] 2 SCR 100 Ontario (Ministry of Labour) v Lee Valley Tools, 2009 ONCA 387, 101, 102, 104 [2009] OJ No 1882 Poshteh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2005 FCA 50, 100 85, [2005] 3 FCR 487 R v Ahmad, 2009 CanLII 84776 (ON SC) 124 R v Ahmad, 2009 CanLII 84778 (ON SC) 105, 115
R v Ahmad, 2011 SCC 6, [2011] 1 SCR 110 134
R v Barros, 2011 SCC 51, [2011] 3 SCR 368 117
R v Basi, 2009 SCC 52, [2009] 3 SCR 389 117, 121, 133
R v Beaulieu, 2010 SCC 7, [2010] 1 SCR 248 96 R v Bellusci, 2012 SCC 44, [2012] 2 SCR 509 98
R v Bjelland, 2009 SCC 38, [2009] 2 SCR 651 102
R v Bradford, 52 OR (3d) 257, [2001] OJ No. 107 (CA) 101, 102 R v Brown, 2002 SCC 32, [2002] 2 SCR 185 130
R v Buhay, 2003 SCC 30, [2003] 1 SCR 631 96 R v Côté, 2011 SCC 46, [2011] 3 SCR 215 96 R v Gruenke, [1991] 3 SCR 263 117 R v J.P., 2009 ONCA 850 103
R v LA, [1997] 2 SCR 680 92, 101, 102, 103
R v Leipert, [1997] 1 SCR 281 117, 126
R v Lewes Justices Ex parte Secretary of State for the Home 116 Department, [1973] AC 388 (gaming board) R v Lyons, [1987] 2 SCR 309 46 R v Malmo-Levine; R v Caine, 2003 SCC 74, [2003] 3 SCR 571 50, 77 R v Mann, 2004 SCC 52, [2004] 3 SCR 59 96 R v Mills, [1999] 3 SCR 668 61, 101 45
R v N.Y., 2012 ONCA 745 115 R v Named Person B., 2013 SCC 9 124 R v National Post, 2010 SCC 16, [2010] 1 SCR 477 120 R v O’Connor, [1995] 4 SCR 411 92, 101, 129 R v Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103 77 R v Regan, 2002 SCC 12, [2002] 1 SCR 297 98
R v Rodgers, 2006 SCC 15, [2006] 1 SCR 554 46, 52, 60 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Hosenball, 115 [1977] 3 All ER 452, [1977] 1 WLR 766 Rice v Canada (National Parole Board), (1985), 16 Admin. L.R. 157 116 RJR-MacDonald Inc. v Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 SCR 199 77 Ruby v Canada (Solicitor General), 2002 SCC 75, [2002] 4 SCR 3 51, 77, 105 Solicitor General of Canada et al v Royal Commission (Health 115, 116 Records), [1981] 2 SCR 494 St. Elizabeth Home Society v Hamilton (City), 2008 ONCA 182, 230 117 CCC (3d) 199 Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 47, 105 SCC 1, [2002] 1 SCR 3 Traljesic v Attorney-General (Cth), [2006] FCA 125, (2006) 150 FCR 82 199 United States of America v Ferras; United States of America v Latty, 46 2006 SCC 33, [2006] 2 SCR 77 Zündel (Re), 2005 FC 295 43, 47, 107
B. OTHER AUTHORITIES Craig Forcese & Lorne Waldman, “Comments on Bill C-3 (An Act to 59 amend Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Certificate & Special Advocate) and to Make a Consequential Amendment to Another Act)”, November 1, 2007 Erik J. Dahl, “Plots that Failed: Intelligence Lessons Learned from 123 Unsuccessful Terrorist Attacks Against the United States”, 34 Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 621 House of Commons Debates, 39th Parl, 2nd Sess, Vol. 142, N o 009 122 (October 26, 2007) House of Commons Debates, 39th Parl, 2nd Sess, Vol. 142, No 019 70 (November 19, 2007) House of Commons, Debates, 39th Parl, 2nd Sess, Vol. 142, No. 044 122 (February 5, 2008) Internal Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to 67, 84 Abdullah Almalki, et al, Ruling on terms of reference and procedure, May 31, 2007 (Hon. Frank Iacobucci) 46
Proceedings before the Standing Committee on Public Safety & 59, 71, 72 National Security, 39th Parl, 2nd Sess, SECU, No 005 (November 29, 2007) Proceedings of the Special Senate Committee on Anti-terrorism, 39th 59, 70, 73 Parl, 2nd Sess, Issue No. 4 (February 11 & 12, 2008)
INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATION AND RELATED SECONDARY SOURCES
Australia (Cth) Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) 82 An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 – [short title 82 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act] Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979 (Cth) Criminal Code Act 1995, Schedule - The Criminal Code (Cth) 82 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) 82 Kent Roach, The 9/11 Effect: Comparative Counter-Terrorism, 82 University of Toronto, 2011 The National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) 82 Act 2004 (Cth) The Hon. Justice Garry Downes AM, The Security Appeals Division 82 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Functions, Powers and Procedures, University of Sydney, September 13, 2006 New Zealand (NZ) Immigration Act 2009, (NZ), 2009/51 81 United Kingdom (UK) Justice and Security Act 2013 (UK), c 18 – Royal Assent 25 April, 81 2013, not yet in force Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (UK), c 68 81 Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003 81 (UK), 2003/1034 Terrorism Prevention and Investigations Measures Act 2011 (UK), c 81 23 The Civil Procedure [Amendment No 3] Rules 2011 (UK), 2011/ 2970 81 (L.21) United States of America (USA) 47
Alien Terrorist Removal Procedures, 8 USC, Chapter 12, Subchapter 81 V, sec 1531 et seq, 1532(e), 1534(e)(3)(F) (Immigration and Nationality Act) Code of Federal Regulations, 8 CFR, § 1240.11,(c) (3) (iv) 81 Immigration, 8 USC, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, sec 1229a 81 (Immigration and Nationality Act) Jaya Ramji-Nogales, A Global approach to Secret Evidence: How 81 Human Rights Law Can Reform Our Immigration System, 39 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 2008
48
APPENDIX “A” – STATUTES RELIED ON
The Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS CHARTE CANADIENNE DES DROITS AND FREEDOMS ET LIBERTÉS
Whereas Canada is founded upon Attendu que le Canada est fondé sur des principles that recognize the supremacy of principes qui reconnaissent la suprématie God and the rule of law: de Dieu et la primauté du droit :
GUARANTEE OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS GARANTIE DES DROITS ET LIBERTES
Rights and freedoms in Canada Droits et libertés au Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and 1. La Charte canadienne des droits et Freedoms guarantees the rights and libertés garantit les droits et libertés qui y freedoms set out in it subject only to such sont énoncés. Ils ne peuvent être restreints reasonable limits prescribed by law as can que par une règle de droit, dans des limites be demonstrably justified in a f ree and qui soient raisonnables et dont la democratic society. justification puisse se démontrer dans le
cadre d’une société libre et démocratique.
Legal Rights Garanties juridiques
Life, liberty and security of person Vie, liberté et sécurité
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and 7. Chacun a droit à la vie, à la liberté et à la security of the person and the right not to sécurité de sa personne; il ne peut être porté be deprived thereof except in accordance atteinte à ce droit qu’en conformité avec les with the principles of fundamental justice. principes de justice fondamentale.
Enforcement Recours
Enforcement of guaranteed rights and Recours en cas d’atteinte aux droits et freedoms libertés
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, 24. (1) Toute personne, victime de as guaranteed by this Charter, have been violation ou de négation des droits ou infringed or denied may apply to a court of libertés qui lui sont garantis par la présente competent jurisdiction to obtain such charte, peut s’adresser à un t ribunal 49
remedy as the court considers appropriate compétent pour obtenir la réparation que le and just in the circumstances. tribunal estime convenable et juste eu égard aux circonstances. Exclusion of evidence bringing Note marginale :Irrecevabilité d’éléments administration of justice into disrepute de preuve qui risqueraient de déconsidérer l’administration de la justice (2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that (2) Lorsque, dans une instance visée au evidence was obtained in a m anner that paragraphe (1), le tribunal a conclu que des infringed or denied any rights or freedoms éléments de preuve ont été obtenus dans guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence des conditions qui portent atteinte aux shall be excluded if it is established that, droits ou l ibertés garantis par la présente having regard to all the circumstances, the charte, ces éléments de preuve sont écartés admission of it in the proceedings would s’il est établi, eu égard aux circonstances, bring the administration of justice into que leur utilisation est susceptible de disrepute. déconsidérer l’administration de la justice.
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27
OBJECTIVES AND APPLICATION OBJET DE LA LOI
Objectives — immigration Objet en matière d’immigration
3. (1) The objectives of this Act with 3. (1) En matière d’immigration, la respect to immigration are présente loi a pour objet : (a) to permit Canada to pursue the a) de permettre au Canada de retirer de maximum social, cultural and economic l’immigration le maximum d’avantages benefits of immigration; sociaux, culturels et économiques; (b) to enrich and strengthen the social and b) d’enrichir et de renforcer le tissu social cultural fabric of Canadian society, while et culturel du Canada dans le respect de respecting the federal, bilingual and son caractère fédéral, bilingue et multicultural character of Canada; multiculturel; (b.1) to support and assist the b.1) de favoriser le développement des development of minority official collectivités de langues officielles languages communities in Canada; minoritaires au Canada; (c) to support the development of a strong c) de favoriser le développement and prosperous Canadian economy, in économique et la prospérité du Canada et which the benefits of immigration are de faire en sorte que toutes les régions shared across all regions of Canada; puissent bénéficier des avantages (d) to see that families are reunited in économiques découlant de l’immigration; Canada; d) de veiller à l a réunification des (e) to promote the successful integration familles au Canada; of permanent residents into Canada, e) de promouvoir l’intégration des while recognizing that integration résidents permanents au Canada, compte 50
involves mutual obligations for new tenu du fait que cette intégration suppose immigrants and Canadian society; des obligations pour les nouveaux (f) to support, by means of consistent arrivants et pour la société canadienne; standards and prompt processing, the f) d’atteindre, par la prise de normes attainment of immigration goals uniformes et l’application d’un traitement established by the Government of Canada efficace, les objectifs fixés pour in consultation with the provinces; l’immigration par le gouvernement (g) to facilitate the entry of visitors, fédéral après consultation des provinces; students and temporary workers for g) de faciliter l’entrée des visiteurs, purposes such as trade, commerce, étudiants et travailleurs temporaires qui tourism, international understanding and viennent au Canada dans le cadre cultural, educational and scientific d’activités commerciales, touristiques, activities; culturelles, éducatives, scientifiques ou (h) to protect the health and safety of autres, ou pour favoriser la bonne entente Canadians and to maintain the security of à l’échelle internationale; Canadian society; h) de protéger la santé des Canadiens et (i) to promote international justice and de garantir leur sécurité; security by fostering respect for human i) de promouvoir, à l’échelle rights and by denying access to Canadian internationale, la justice et la sécurité par territory to persons who are criminals or le respect des droits de la personne et security risks; and l’interdiction de territoire aux personnes (j) to work in cooperation with the qui sont des criminels ou c onstituent un provinces to secure better recognition of danger pour la sécurité; the foreign credentials of permanent j) de veiller, de concert avec les residents and their more rapid integration provinces, à ai der les résidents into society. permanents à m ieux faire reconnaître leurs titres de compétence et à s’intégrer plus rapidement à la société.
Objectives — refugees Objet relatif aux réfugiés
(2) The objectives of this Act with (2) S’agissant des réfugiés, la présente loi respect to refugees are a pour objet : (a) to recognize that the refugee program a) de reconnaître que le programme pour is in the first instance about saving lives les réfugiés vise avant tout à s auver des and offering protection to the displaced vies et à p rotéger les personnes de la and persecuted; persécution; (b) to fulfil Canada’s international legal b) de remplir les obligations en droit obligations with respect to refugees and international du Canada relatives aux affirm Canada’s commitment to réfugiés et aux personnes déplacées et international efforts to provide assistance d’affirmer la volonté du C anada de to those in need of resettlement; participer aux efforts de la communauté (c) to grant, as a fundamental expression internationale pour venir en aide aux of Canada’s humanitarian ideals, fair personnes qui doivent se réinstaller; consideration to those who come to c) de faire bénéficier ceux qui fuient la 51
Canada claiming persecution; persécution d’une procédure équitable (d) to offer safe haven to persons with a reflétant les idéaux humanitaires du well-founded fear of persecution based Canada; on race, religion, nationality, political d) d’offrir l’asile à ceux qui craignent opinion or membership in a particular avec raison d’être persécutés du fait de social group, as well as those at risk of leur race, leur religion, leur nationalité, torture or cruel and unusual treatment or leurs opinions politiques, leur punishment; appartenance à un groupe social en (e) to establish fair and efficient particulier, ainsi qu’à ceux qui risquent la procedures that will maintain the integrity torture ou de s traitements ou pe ines of the Canadian refugee protection cruels et inusités; system, while upholding Canada’s e) de mettre en place une procédure respect for the human rights and équitable et efficace qui soit fundamental freedoms of all human respectueuse, d’une part, de l’intégrité du beings; processus canadien d’asile et, d’autre (f) to support the self-sufficiency and the part, des droits et des libertés social and economic well-being of fondamentales reconnus à tout être refugees by facilitating reunification with humain; their family members in Canada; f) d’encourager l’autonomie et le bien- (g) to protect the health and safety of être socioéconomique des réfugiés en Canadians and to maintain the security of facilitant la réunification de leurs familles Canadian society; and au Canada; (h) to promote international justice and g) de protéger la santé des Canadiens et security by denying access to Canadian de garantir leur sécurité; territory to persons, including refugee h) de promouvoir, à l’échelle claimants, who are security risks or internationale, la sécurité et la justice par serious criminals. l’interdiction du t erritoire aux personnes et demandeurs d’asile qui sont de grands criminels ou c onstituent un da nger pour la sécurité.
DIVISION 4 SECTION 4 INADMISSIBILITY INTERDICTIONS DE TERRITOIRE
Rules of interpretation Interprétation 33. The facts that constitute 33. Les faits — actes ou omissions — inadmissibility under sections 34 to 37 mentionnés aux articles 34 à 37 sont, sauf include facts arising from omissions and, disposition contraire, appréciés sur la base unless otherwise provided, include facts de motifs raisonnables de croire qu’ils for which there are reasonable grounds to sont survenus, surviennent ou peuvent believe that they have occurred, are survenir. occurring or may occur. 52
Security Sécurité 34. (1) A permanent resident or a 34. (1) Emportent interdiction de foreign national is inadmissible on territoire pour raison de sécurité les faits security grounds for suivants : (a) engaging in an act of espionage or an a) être l’auteur d’actes d’espionnage ou se act of subversion against a democratic livrer à la subversion contre toute government, institution or process as institution démocratique, au sens où cette they are understood in Canada; expression s’entend au Canada; (b) engaging in or instigating the b) être l’instigateur ou l’auteur d’actes subversion by force of any government; visant au renversement d’un gouvernement par la force; (c) engaging in terrorism; c) se livrer au terrorisme; (d) being a danger to the security of Canada; d) constituer un danger pour la sécurité du Canada; (e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or e) être l’auteur de tout acte de violence safety of persons in Canada; or susceptible de mettre en danger la vie ou la sécurité d’autrui au Canada; (f) being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to f) être membre d’une organisation dont il believe engages, has engaged or will y a des motifs raisonnables de croire engage in acts referred to in paragraph qu’elle est, a été ou sera l’auteur d’un acte (a), (b) or (c). visé aux alinéas a), b) ou c).
Exception Exception (2) The matters referred to in (2) Ces faits n’emportent pas subsection (1) do not constitute interdiction de territoire pour le résident inadmissibility in respect of a permanent permanent ou l’étranger qui convainc le resident or a foreign national who ministre que sa présence au Canada ne satisfies the Minister that their presence serait nullement préjudiciable à l’intérêt in Canada would not be detrimental to national. the national interest. DIVISION 9 SECTION 9 CERTIFICATES AND PROTECTION CERTIFICATS ET PROTECTION DE OF INFORMATION RENSEIGNEMENTS Interpretation Définitions
Definitions Définitions 76. The following definitions apply 76. Les définitions qui suivent 53
in this Division. s’appliquent à la présente section. “information” « juge » « renseignements » “judge” “information” means security or criminal « juge » Le juge en chef de la Cour intelligence information and information fédérale ou le juge de cette juridiction that is obtained in confidence from a désigné par celui-ci. source in Canada, the government of a foreign state, an international « renseignements » organization of states or an institution of “information” such a government or international « renseignements » Les renseignements organization. en matière de sécurité ou de criminalité et ceux obtenus, sous le sceau du secret, de “judge” source canadienne ou du gouvernement « juge » d’un État étranger, d’une organisation “judge” means the Chief Justice of the internationale mise sur pied par des États Federal Court or a judge of that Court ou de l’un de leurs organismes. designated by the Chief Justice. 2001, ch. 27, art. 76; 2001, c. 27, s. 76; 2002, ch. 8, art. 194; 2002, c. 8, s. 194; 2008, ch. 3, art. 4. 2008, c. 3, s. 4. Certificat Certificate Dépôt du certificat Referral of certificate 77. (1) Le ministre et le ministre de la 77. (1) The Minister and the Minister Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration déposent of Citizenship and Immigration shall sign à la Cour fédérale le certificat attestant a certificate stating that a permanent qu’un résident permanent ou qu’un resident or foreign national is étranger est interdit de territoire pour inadmissible on grounds of security, raison de sécurité ou pour atteinte aux violating human or international rights, droits humains ou internationaux, grande serious criminality or organized criminalité ou criminalité organisée. criminality, and shall refer the certificate to the Federal Court. Dépôt de la preuve et du résumé
Filing of evidence and summary (2) Le ministre dépose en même temps que le certificat les renseignements (2) When the certificate is referred, et autres éléments de preuve justifiant ce the Minister shall file with the Court the dernier, ainsi qu’un résumé de la preuve information and other evidence on which qui permet à la personne visée d’être the certificate is based, and a summary of suffisamment informée de sa thèse et qui information and other evidence that ne comporte aucun élément dont la enables the person who is named in the divulgation porterait atteinte, selon le certificate to be reasonably informed of ministre, à la sécurité nationale ou à la 54
the case made by the Minister but that sécurité d’autrui. does not include anything that, in the Minister’s opinion, would be injurious to national security or endanger the safety of any person if disclosed. Effet du dépôt Effect of referral (3) Il ne peut être procédé à aucune (3) Once the certificate is referred, no instance visant la personne au titre de la proceeding under this Act respecting the présente loi tant qu’il n’a pas été statué person who is named in the certificate — sur le certificat. Ne sont pas visées les other than proceedings relating to instances relatives aux articles 82 à 82.3, sections 82 to 82.3, 112 and 115 — may 112 et 115. be commenced or continued until the judge determines whether the certificate 2001, ch. 27, art. 77; is reasonable. 2002, ch. 8, art. 194; 2005, ch. 10, art. 34; 2001, c. 27, s. 77; 2008, ch. 3, art. 4. 2002, c. 8, s. 194; 2005, c. 10, s. 34; 2008, c. 3, s. 4. Décision Determination 78. Le juge décide du caractère 78. The judge shall determine raisonnable du certificat et l’annule s’il ne whether the certificate is reasonable and peut conclure qu’il est raisonnable. shall quash the certificate if he or she determines that it is not. 2001, ch. 27, art. 78; 2005, ch. 10, art. 34(A); 2001, c. 27, s. 78; 2008, ch. 3, art. 4. 2005, c. 10, s. 34(E); 2008, c. 3, s. 4. Appel Appeal 79. La décision n’est susceptible 79. An appeal from the determination d’appel devant la Cour d’appel fédérale may be made to the Federal Court of que si le juge certifie que l’affaire soulève Appeal only if the judge certifies that a une question grave de portée générale et serious question of general importance is énonce celle-ci; toutefois, les décisions involved and states the question. interlocutoires ne sont pas susceptibles However, no appeal may be made from d’appel. an interlocutory decision in the proceeding. 2001, ch. 27, art. 79; 2002, ch. 8, art. 194; 2001, c. 27, s. 79; 2008, ch. 3, art. 4. 2002, c. 8, s. 194; 55
2008, c. 3, s. 4. Effet du certificat
Effect of certificate 80. Le certificat jugé raisonnable fait foi de l’interdiction de territoire et 80. A certificate that is determined to constitue une mesure de renvoi en be reasonable is conclusive proof that the vigueur, sans qu’il soit nécessaire de person named in it is inadmissible and is procéder au contrôle ou à l’enquête. a removal order that is in force without it being necessary to hold or continue an 2001, ch. 27, art. 80; examination or admissibility hearing. 2008, ch. 3, art. 4.
2001, c. 27, s. 80; 2008, c. 3, s. 4.
Detention and Release Détention et mise en liberté
Ministers’ warrant Mandat d’arrestation 81. The Minister and the Minister of 81. Le ministre et le ministre de la Citizenship and Immigration may issue a Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration peuvent warrant for the arrest and detention of a lancer un mandat pour l’arrestation et la person who is named in a certificate if mise en détention de la personne visée par they have reasonable grounds to believe le certificat dont ils ont des motifs that the person is a danger to national raisonnables de croire qu’elle constitue un security or to the safety of any person or danger pour la sécurité nationale ou la is unlikely to appear at a proceeding or sécurité d’autrui ou qu’elle se soustraira for removal. vraisemblablement à la procédure ou au renvoi. 2001, c. 27, s. 81; 2008, c. 3, s. 4. 2001, ch. 27, art. 81; 2008, ch. 3, art. 4. Initial review of detention Premier contrôle de la détention 82. (1) A judge shall commence a review of the reasons for the person’s 82. (1) Dans les quarante-huit heures continued detention within 48 hours after suivant le début de la détention, le juge the detention begins. entreprend le contrôle des motifs justifiant le maintien en détention. Further reviews of detention — before determining reasonableness Contrôles subséquents — avant la décision sur le certificat (2) Until it is determined whether a certificate is reasonable, a judge shall (2) Tant qu’il n’est pas statué sur le commence another review of the reasons certificat, le juge entreprend un autre for the person’s continued detention at contrôle des motifs justifiant le maintien least once in the six-month period en détention au moins une fois au cours 56
following the conclusion of each des six mois suivant la conclusion du preceding review. dernier contrôle.
Further reviews of detention — after Contrôles subséquents — après la determining reasonableness décision sur le certificat (3) A person who continues to be (3) La personne dont le certificat a été detained after a certificate is determined jugé raisonnable et qui est maintenue en to be reasonable may apply to the détention peut demander à la Cour Federal Court for another review of the fédérale un autre contrôle des motifs reasons for their continued detention if a justifiant ce maintien une fois expiré un period of six months has expired since délai de six mois suivant la conclusion du the conclusion of the preceding review. dernier contrôle.
Reviews of conditions (4) A person who is released from Contrôles des conditions de mise en detention under conditions may apply to liberté the Federal Court for another review of the reasons for continuing the conditions (4) La personne mise en liberté sous if a period of six months has expired condition peut demander à la Cour since the conclusion of the preceding fédérale un autre contrôle des motifs review. justifiant le maintien des conditions une fois expiré un délai de six mois suivant la Order conclusion du dernier contrôle. (5) On review, the judge Ordonnance (a) shall order the person’s detention to (5) Lors du contrôle, le juge : be continued if the judge is satisfied that the person’s release under conditions a) ordonne le maintien en détention s’il would be injurious to national security or est convaincu que la mise en liberté sous endanger the safety of any person or that condition de la personne constituera un they would be unlikely to appear at a danger pour la sécurité nationale ou la proceeding or for removal if they were sécurité d’autrui ou qu’elle se soustraira released under conditions; or vraisemblablement à la procédure ou au renvoi si elle est mise en liberté sous (b) in any other case, shall order or condition; confirm the person’s release from detention and set any conditions that the b) dans les autres cas, ordonne ou judge considers appropriate. confirme sa mise en liberté et assortit celle-ci des conditions qu’il estime indiquées. 2001, c. 27, s. 82; 2005, c. 10, s. 34; 2001, ch. 27, art. 82; 2008, c. 3, s. 4. 2005, ch. 10, art. 34; 2008, ch. 3, art. 4. Variation of orders 57
82.1 (1) A judge may vary an order Modification des ordonnances made under subsection 82(5) on application of the Minister or of the 82.1 (1) Le juge peut modifier toute person who is subject to the order if the ordonnance rendue au titre du paragraphe judge is satisfied that the variation is 82(5) sur demande du ministre ou de la desirable because of a material change in personne visée par l’ordonnance s’il est the circumstances that led to the order. convaincu qu’il est souhaitable de le faire en raison d’un changement important des Calculation of period for next review circonstances ayant donné lieu à l’ordonnance. (2) For the purpose of calculating the six-month period referred to in Calcul du délai pour le prochain contrôle subsection 82(2), (3) or (4), the conclusion of the preceding review is (2) Pour le calcul de la période de six deemed to have taken place on the day mois prévue aux paragraphes 82(2), (3) on which the decision under subsection ou (4), la conclusion du dernier contrôle (1) is made. est réputée avoir eu lieu à la date à laquelle la décision visée au paragraphe (1) est rendue. 2008, c. 3, s. 4.
Arrest and detention — breach of 2008, ch. 3, art. 4. conditions Arrestation et détention — non-respect de 82.2 (1) A peace officer may arrest conditions and detain a person released under section 82 or 82.1 if the officer has 82.2 (1) L’agent de la paix peut arrêter reasonable grounds to believe that the et détenir toute personne mise en liberté person has contravened or is about to au titre des articles 82 ou 82.1 s’il a des contravene any condition applicable to motifs raisonnables de croire qu’elle a their release. contrevenu ou est sur le point de contrevenir à l’une ou l’autre des Appearance before judge conditions de sa mise en liberté. (2) The peace officer shall bring the Comparution person before a judge within 48 hours after the detention begins. (2) Le cas échéant, il la conduit devant un juge dans les quarante-huit heures Order suivant le début de la détention. (3) If the judge finds that the person Ordonnance has contravened or was about to contravene any condition applicable to (3) S’il conclut que la personne a their release, the judge shall contrevenu ou était sur le point de contrevenir à l’une ou l’autre des (a) order the person’s detention to be conditions de sa mise en liberté, le juge, continued if the judge is satisfied that the selon le cas : person’s release under conditions would 58
be injurious to national security or a) ordonne qu’elle soit maintenue en endanger the safety of any person or that détention s’il est convaincu que sa mise they would be unlikely to appear at a en liberté sous condition constituera un proceeding or for removal if they were danger pour la sécurité nationale ou la released under conditions; sécurité d’autrui ou qu’elle se soustraira (b) confirm the release order; or vraisemblablement à la procédure ou au renvoi si elle est mise en liberté sous (c) vary the conditions applicable to their condition; release. b) confirme l’ordonnance de mise en liberté; c) modifie les conditions dont la mise en Calculation of period for next review liberté est assortie. (4) For the purpose of calculating the six-month period referred to in Calcul du délai pour le prochain contrôle subsection 82(2), (3) or (4), the conclusion of the preceding review is (4) Pour le calcul de la période de six deemed to have taken place on the day mois prévue aux paragraphes 82(2), (3) on which the decision under subsection ou (4), la conclusion du dernier contrôle (3) is made. est réputée avoir eu lieu à la date à laquelle la décision visée au paragraphe 2008, c. 3, s. 4. (3) est rendue. 2008, ch. 3, art. 4. Appeal 82.3 An appeal from a decision made Appel under any of sections 82 to 82.2 may be made to the Federal Court of Appeal 82.3 Les décisions rendues au titre des only if the judge certifies that a serious articles 82 à 82.2 ne sont susceptibles question of general importance is d’appel devant la Cour d’appel fédérale involved and states the question. que si le juge certifie que l’affaire soulève However, no appeal may be made from une question grave de portée générale et an interlocutory decision in the énonce celle-ci; toutefois, les décisions proceeding. interlocutoires ne sont pas susceptibles d’appel. 2008, c. 3, s. 4. 2008, ch. 3, art. 4. Minister’s order to release Ordonnance ministérielle de mise en 82.4 The Minister may, at any time, liberté order that a person who is detained under any of sections 82 to 82.2 be released 82.4 Le ministre peut, en tout temps, from detention to permit their departure ordonner la mise en liberté de la personne from Canada. détenue au titre de l’un des articles 82 à 82.2 pour lui permettre de quitter le 2008, c. 3, s. 4. Canada.
2008, ch. 3, art. 4. 59
Protection of Information Protection des renseignements Protection of information Protection des renseignements 83. (1) The following provisions apply to proceedings under any of 83. (1) Les règles ci-après sections 78 and 82 to 82.2: s’appliquent aux instances visées aux articles 78 et 82 à 82.2 : (a) the judge shall proceed as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances a) le juge procède, dans la mesure où les and considerations of fairness and natural circonstances et les considérations justice permit; d’équité et de justice naturelle le permettent, sans formalisme et selon la (b) the judge shall appoint a person from procédure expéditive; the list referred to in subsection 85(1) to act as a special advocate in the b) il nomme, parmi les personnes figurant proceeding after hearing representations sur la liste dressée au titre du paragraphe from the permanent resident or foreign 85(1), celle qui agira à titre d’avocat national and the Minister and after giving spécial dans le cadre de l’instance, après particular consideration and weight to the avoir entendu l’intéressé et le ministre et preferences of the permanent resident or accordé une attention et une importance foreign national; particulières aux préférences de l’intéressé; (c) at any time during a proceeding, the judge may, on the judge’s own motion — and shall, on each request of the Minister — hear information or other evidence in c) il peut d’office tenir une audience à the absence of the public and of the huis clos et en l’absence de l’intéressé et permanent resident or foreign national de son conseil — et doit le faire à chaque and their counsel if, in the judge’s demande du ministre — si la divulgation opinion, its disclosure could be injurious des renseignements ou autres éléments de to national security or endanger the preuve en cause pourrait porter atteinte, safety of any person; selon lui, à la sécurité nationale ou à la sécurité d’autrui; (d) the judge shall ensure the confidentiality of information and other evidence provided by the Minister if, in d) il lui incombe de garantir la the judge’s opinion, its disclosure would confidentialité des renseignements et be injurious to national security or autres éléments de preuve que lui fournit endanger the safety of any person; le ministre et dont la divulgation porterait (e) throughout the proceeding, the judge atteinte, selon lui, à la sécurité nationale shall ensure that the permanent resident ou à la sécurité d’autrui; or foreign national is provided with a e) il veille tout au long de l’instance à ce summary of information and other que soit fourni à l’intéressé un résumé de evidence that enables them to be la preuve qui ne comporte aucun élément reasonably informed of the case made by dont la divulgation porterait atteinte, selon the Minister in the proceeding but that 60
does not include anything that, in the lui, à la sécurité nationale ou à la sécurité judge’s opinion, would be injurious to d’autrui et qui permet à l’intéressé d’être national security or endanger the safety suffisamment informé de la thèse du of any person if disclosed; ministre à l’égard de l’instance en cause; (f) the judge shall ensure the confidentiality of all information or other evidence that is withdrawn by the Minister; f) il lui incombe de garantir la (g) the judge shall provide the permanent confidentialité des renseignements et resident or foreign national and the autres éléments de preuve que le ministre Minister with an opportunity to be heard; retire de l’instance; (h) the judge may receive into evidence g) il donne à l’intéressé et au ministre la anything that, in the judge’s opinion, is possibilité d’être entendus; reliable and appropriate, even if it is h) il peut recevoir et admettre en preuve inadmissible in a court of law, and may tout élément — même inadmissible en base a decision on that evidence; justice — qu’il estime digne de foi et utile (i) the judge may base a decision on et peut fonder sa décision sur celui-ci; information or other evidence even if a i) il peut fonder sa décision sur des summary of that information or other renseignements et autres éléments de evidence is not provided to the preuve même si un résumé de ces derniers permanent resident or foreign national; n’est pas fourni à l’intéressé; and
(j) the judge shall not base a decision on information or other evidence provided j) il ne peut fonder sa décision sur les by the Minister, and shall return it to the renseignements et autres éléments de Minister, if the judge determines that it is preuve que lui fournit le ministre et les not relevant or if the Minister withdraws remet à celui-ci s’il décide qu’ils ne sont it. pas pertinents ou si le ministre les retire.
Clarification (1.1) For the purposes of paragraph Précision (1)(h), reliable and appropriate evidence (1.1) Pour l’application de l’alinéa does not include information that is (1)h), sont exclus des éléments de preuve believed on reasonable grounds to have dignes de foi et utiles les renseignements been obtained as a result of the use of dont il existe des motifs raisonnables de torture within the meaning of section croire qu’ils ont été obtenus par suite du 269.1 of the Criminal Code, or cruel, recours à la torture, au sens de l’article inhuman or degrading treatment or 269.1 du Code criminel, ou à d’autres punishment within the meaning of the peines ou traitements cruels, inhumains Convention Against Torture. ou dégradants, au sens de la Convention contre la torture. 61
Appointment of special advocate Choix de l’avocat spécial (1.2) If the permanent resident or (1.2) Si l’intéressé demande qu’une foreign national requests that a particular personne en particulier soit nommée au person be appointed under paragraph titre de l’alinéa (1)b), le juge nomme cette (1)(b), the judge shall appoint that person personne, à moins qu’il estime que l’une unless the judge is satisfied that ou l’autre des situations ci-après s’applique : (a) the appointment would result in the proceeding being unreasonably delayed; a) la nomination de cette personne retarderait indûment l’instance; (b) the appointment would place the person in a conflict of interest; or b) la nomination de cette personne mettrait celle-ci en situation de conflit d’intérêts; (c) the person has knowledge of c) cette personne a connaissance de information or other evidence whose renseignements ou d’autres éléments de disclosure would be injurious to national preuve dont la divulgation porterait security or endanger the safety of any atteinte à la sécurité nationale ou à la person and, in the circumstances, there is sécurité d’autrui et, dans les a risk of inadvertent disclosure of that circonstances, ces renseignements ou information or other evidence. autres éléments de preuve risquent d’être divulgués par inadvertance. For greater certainty
(2) For greater certainty, the judge’s power to appoint a person to act as a Précision special advocate in a proceeding includes the power to terminate the appointment (2) Il est entendu que le pouvoir du and to appoint another person. juge de nommer une personne qui agira à titre d’avocat spécial dans le cadre d’une 2001, c. 27, s. 83; instance comprend celui de mettre fin à 2008, c. 3, s. 4. ses fonctions et de nommer quelqu’un pour la remplacer.
2001, ch. 27, art. 83; Protection of information on appeal 2008, ch. 3, art. 4.
84. Section 83 — other than the Protection des renseignements à l’appel obligation to provide a summary — and sections 85.1 to 85.5 apply to an appeal 84. L’article 83 — sauf quant à under section 79 or 82.3, and to any l’obligation de fournir un résumé — et les further appeal, with any necessary articles 85.1 à 85.5 s’appliquent, avec les modifications. adaptations nécessaires, à l’appel interjeté au titre des articles 79 ou 82.3 et à tout 2001, c. 27, s. 84; appel subséquent. 62
2008, c. 3, s. 4. 2001, ch. 27, art. 84; Special Advocate 2008, ch. 3, art. 4. Avocat spécial List of persons who may act as special advocates Liste de personnes pouvant agir à titre 85. (1) The Minister of Justice shall d’avocat spécial establish a list of persons who may act as special advocates and shall publish the 85. (1) Le ministre de la Justice dresse list in a manner that the Minister of une liste de personnes pouvant agir à titre Justice considers appropriate to facilitate d’avocat spécial et publie la liste de la public access to it. façon qu’il estime indiquée pour la rendre accessible au public. Statutory Instruments Act Loi sur les textes réglementaires (2) The Statutory Instruments Act does not apply to the list. (2) La Loi sur les textes réglementaires ne s’applique pas à la liste. Administrative support and resources (3) The Minister of Justice shall Soutien administratif et ressources ensure that special advocates are provided with adequate administrative (3) Le ministre de la Justice veille à ce support and resources. que soient fournis à tout avocat spécial un soutien administratif et des ressources adéquats. 2001, c. 27, s. 85; 2008, c. 3, s. 4. 2001, ch. 27, art. 85; 2008, ch. 3, art. 4. Special advocate’s role 85.1 (1) A special advocate’s role is Rôle de l’avocat spécial to protect the interests of the permanent resident or foreign national in a 85.1 (1) L’avocat spécial a pour rôle proceeding under any of sections 78 and de défendre les intérêts du résident 82 to 82.2 when information or other permanent ou de l’étranger lors de toute evidence is heard in the absence of the audience tenue à huis clos et en l’absence public and of the permanent resident or de celui-ci et de son conseil dans le cadre foreign national and their counsel. de toute instance visée à l’un des articles 78 et 82 à 82.2. Responsibilities Responsabilités (2) A special advocate may challenge (2) Il peut contester : (a) the Minister’s claim that the disclosure of information or other a) les affirmations du ministre voulant evidence would be injurious to national que la divulgation de renseignements ou autres éléments de preuve porterait 63
security or endanger the safety of any atteinte à la sécurité nationale ou à la person; and sécurité d’autrui; (b) the relevance, reliability and b) la pertinence, la fiabilité et la sufficiency of information or other suffisance des renseignements ou autres evidence that is provided by the Minister éléments de preuve fournis par le and is not disclosed to the permanent ministre, mais communiqués ni à resident or foreign national and their l’intéressé ni à son conseil, et counsel, and the weight to be given to it. l’importance qui devrait leur être accordée. For greater certainty Précision (3) For greater certainty, the special advocate is not a party to the proceeding (3) Il est entendu que l’avocat spécial and the relationship between the special n’est pas partie à l’instance et que les advocate and the permanent resident or rapports entre lui et l’intéressé ne sont pas foreign national is not that of solicitor ceux qui existent entre un avocat et son and client. client.
Protection of communications with special advocate Protection des communications avec (4) However, a communication l’avocat spécial between the permanent resident or foreign national or their counsel and the (4) Toutefois, toute communication special advocate that would be subject to entre l’intéressé ou son conseil et l’avocat solicitor-client privilege if the spécial qui serait protégée par le secret relationship were one of solicitor and professionnel liant l’avocat à son client si client is deemed to be subject to ceux-ci avaient de tels rapports est réputée solicitor-client privilege. For greater être ainsi protégée, et il est entendu que certainty, in respect of that l’avocat spécial ne peut être contraint à communication, the special advocate is témoigner à l’égard d’une telle not a compellable witness in any communication dans quelque instance que proceeding. ce soit. 2008, ch. 3, art. 4. 2008, c. 3, s. 4.
Powers Pouvoirs 85.2 A special advocate may 85.2 L’avocat spécial peut : (a) make oral and written submissions a) présenter au juge ses observations, with respect to the information and other oralement ou par écrit, à l’égard des evidence that is provided by the Minister renseignements et autres éléments de and is not disclosed to the permanent preuve fournis par le ministre, mais resident or foreign national and their communiqués ni à l’intéressé ni à son counsel; conseil; 64
(b) participate in, and cross-examine b) participer à toute audience tenue à huis witnesses who testify during, any part of clos et en l’absence de l’intéressé et de the proceeding that is held in the absence son conseil, et contre-interroger les of the public and of the permanent témoins; resident or foreign national and their counsel; and c) exercer, avec l’autorisation du juge, tout autre pouvoir nécessaire à la défense (c) exercise, with the judge’s des intérêts du résident permanent ou de authorization, any other powers that are l’étranger. necessary to protect the interests of the permanent resident or foreign national. 2008, ch. 3, art. 4.
2008, c. 3, s. 4.
Immunity Immunité 85.3 A special advocate is not 85.3 L’avocat spécial est dégagé de personally liable for anything they do or toute responsabilité personnelle en ce qui omit to do in good faith under this concerne les faits — actes ou omissions Division. — accomplis de bonne foi dans le cadre de la présente section. 2008, c. 3, s. 4. 2008, ch. 3, art. 4. Obligation to provide information Obligation de communication 85.4 (1) The Minister shall, within a period set by the judge, provide the 85.4 (1) Il incombe au ministre de special advocate with a copy of all fournir à l’avocat spécial, dans le délai information and other evidence that is fixé par le juge, copie de tous les provided to the judge but that is not renseignements et autres éléments de disclosed to the permanent resident or preuve qui ont été fournis au juge, mais foreign national and their counsel. qui n’ont été communiqués ni à l’intéressé ni à son conseil. Restrictions on communications — special advocate Restrictions aux communications — avocat spécial (2) After that information or other evidence is received by the special (2) Entre le moment où il reçoit les advocate, the special advocate may, renseignements et autres éléments de during the remainder of the proceeding, preuve et la fin de l’instance, l’avocat communicate with another person about spécial ne peut communiquer avec qui the proceeding only with the judge’s que ce soit au sujet de l’instance si ce authorization and subject to any n’est avec l’autorisation du juge et aux conditions that the judge considers conditions que celui-ci estime indiquées. appropriate. Restrictions aux communications — 65
autres personnes Restrictions on communications — other persons (3) Dans le cas où l’avocat spécial est autorisé à communiquer avec une (3) If the special advocate is personne, le juge peut interdire à cette authorized to communicate with a dernière de communiquer avec qui que ce person, the judge may prohibit that soit d’autre au sujet de l’instance, et ce person from communicating with anyone jusqu’à la fin de celle-ci, ou assujettir à else about the proceeding during the des conditions toute communication de remainder of the proceeding or may cette personne à ce sujet, jusqu’à la fin de impose conditions with respect to such a l’instance. communication during that period. 2008, ch. 3, art. 4. 2008, c. 3, s. 4. Divulgations et communications interdites Disclosure and communication prohibited 85.5 Sauf à l’égard des communications autorisées par tout juge, 85.5 With the exception of il est interdit à quiconque : communications authorized by a judge, no person shall a) de divulguer des renseignements et autres éléments de preuve qui lui sont (a)disclose information or other evidence communiqués au titre de l’article 85.4 et that is disclosed to them under section dont la confidentialité est garantie par le 85.4 and that is treated as confidential by juge présidant l’instance; the judge presiding at the proceeding; or b) de communiquer avec toute personne (b)communicate with another person relativement au contenu de tout ou partie about the content of any part of a d’une audience tenue à huis clos et en proceeding under any of sections 78 and l’absence de l’intéressé et de son conseil 82 to 82.2 that is heard in the absence of dans le cadre d’une instance visée à l’un the public and of the permanent resident des articles 78 et 82 à 82.2. or foreign national and their counsel. 2008, c. 3, s. 4. 2008, ch. 3, art. 4. Rules Règles 85.6 (1) The Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Appeal and the Chief 85.6 (1) Les juges en chef de la Cour Justice of the Federal Court may each d’appel fédérale et de la Cour fédérale establish a committee to make rules peuvent chacun établir un comité chargé governing the practice and procedure in de prendre des règles régissant la pratique relation to the participation of special et la procédure relatives à la participation advocates in proceedings before the court de l’avocat spécial aux instances devant over which they preside. The rules are leurs cours respectives; ces règles binding despite any rule of practice that l’emportent sur les règles et usages qui would otherwise apply. seraient par ailleurs applicables. Composition des comités 66
Composition of committees (2) Le cas échéant, chaque comité est (2) Any committee established shall composé du juge en chef de la cour en be composed of the Chief Justice of the question, du procureur général du Canada Federal Court of Appeal or the Chief ou un ou plusieurs de ses représentants, et Justice of the Federal Court, as the case d’un ou de plusieurs avocats membres du may be, the Attorney General of Canada barreau d’une province ayant de or one or more representatives of the l’expérience dans au moins un domaine Attorney General of Canada, and one or de spécialisation du droit qui se rapporte more members of the bar of any province aux instances visées. Le juge en chef peut who have experience in a field of law y nommer tout autre membre de son relevant to those types of proceedings. comité. The Chief Justices may also designate additional members of their respective committees. Présidence Chief Justices shall preside (3) Les juges en chef de la Cour (3) The Chief Justice of the Federal fédérale d’appel et de la Cour fédérale Court of Appeal and the Chief Justice of président leurs comités respectifs ou the Federal Court — or a member choisissent un membre pour le faire. designated by them — shall preside over 2008, ch. 3, art. 4. their respective committees. 2008, c. 3, s. 4.
Person in need of protection Personne à protéger 97. (1) A person in need of protection is 97. (1) A qualité de personne à protéger la a person in Canada whose removal to personne qui se trouve au Canada et serait their country or countries of nationality personnellement, par son renvoi vers tout or, if they do not have a country of pays dont elle a la nationalité ou, si elle nationality, their country of former n’a pas de nationalité, dans lequel elle habitual residence, would subject them avait sa résidence habituelle, exposée : personally a) soit au risque, s’il y a des motifs (a) to a danger, believed on s ubstantial sérieux de le croire, d’être soumise à la grounds to exist, of torture within the torture au sens de l’article premier de la meaning of Article 1 of the Convention Convention contre la torture; Against Torture; or b) soit à une menace à sa vie ou au risque (b) to a risk to their life or to a risk of de traitements ou peines cruels et inusités cruel and unusual treatment or dans le cas suivant : punishment if (i) elle ne peut ou, d e ce fait, ne veut se (i) the person is unable or, because of réclamer de la protection de ce pays, that risk, unwilling to avail themself of (ii) elle y est exposée en tout lieu de ce the protection of that country, pays alors que d’autres personnes (ii) the risk would be faced by the person originaires de ce pays ou qui s’y trouvent in every part of that country and is not ne le sont généralement pas, faced generally by other individuals in or (iii) la menace ou le risque ne résulte pas 67
from that country, de sanctions légitimes — sauf celles (iii) the risk is not inherent or incidental infligées au mépris des normes to lawful sanctions, unless imposed in internationales — et inhérents à celles-ci disregard of accepted international ou occasionnés par elles, standards, and (iv) la menace ou le risque ne résulte pas (iv) the risk is not caused by the inability de l’incapacité du pa ys de fournir des of that country to provide adequate soins médicaux ou de santé adéquats. health or medical care. Personne à protéger Person in need of protection (2) A également qualité de personne à (2) A person in Canada who is a member protéger la personne qui se trouve au of a class of persons prescribed by the Canada et fait partie d’une catégorie de regulations as being in need of protection personnes auxquelles est reconnu par is also a person in need of protection. règlement le besoin de protection. Pre-removal Risk Assessment Examen des risques avant renvoi Protection Protection Application for protection Demande de protection 112. (1) A person in Canada, other than a 112. (1) La personne se trouvant au person referred to in subsection 115(1), Canada et qui n’est pas visée au may, in accordance with the regulations, paragraphe 115(1) peut, conformément apply to the Minister for protection if aux règlements, demander la protection au they are subject to a removal order that is ministre si elle est visée par une mesure in force or are named in a cer tificate de renvoi ayant pris effet ou nommée au described in subsection 77(1). certificat visé au paragraphe 77(1). Exception Exception (2) Despite subsection (1), a person may (2) Elle n’est pas admise à d emander la not apply for protection if protection dans les cas suivants : (a) they are the subject of an authority to a) elle est visée par un arrêté introductif proceed issued under section 15 of the d’instance pris au titre de l’article 15 de la Extradition Act; Loi sur l’extradition; (b) they have made a c laim to refugee b) sa demande d’asile a ét é jugée protection that has been determined irrecevable au titre de l’alinéa 101(1)e); under paragraph 101(1)(e) to be b.1) sous réserve du p aragraphe (2.1), ineligible; moins de douze mois ou, dans le cas d’un (b.1) subject to subsection (2.1), less than ressortissant d’un pays qui fait l’objet de 12 months, or, in the case of a person la désignation visée au paragraphe who is a national of a country that is 109.1(1), moins de trente-six mois se sont designated under subsection 109.1(1), écoulés depuis le dernier rejet de sa less than 36 m onths, have passed since demande d’asile — sauf s’il s’agit d’un their claim for refugee protection was rejet prévu au paragraphe 109(3) ou d’un last rejected — unless it was deemed to rejet pour un motif prévu à la section E ou be rejected under subsection 109(3) or F de l’article premier de la Convention — was rejected on the basis of section E or ou le dernier prononcé du désistement ou F of Article 1 of the Refugee Convention du retrait de la demande par la Section de 68
— or determined to be withdrawn or la protection des réfugiés ou la Section abandoned by the Refugee Protection d’appel des réfugiés; Division or the Refugee Appeal c) sous réserve du paragraphe (2.1), moins Division; de douze mois ou, da ns le cas d’un (c) subject to subsection (2.1), less than ressortissant d’un pays qui fait l’objet de 12 months, or, in the case of a person la désignation visée au paragraphe who is a national of a country that is 109.1(1), moins de 36 mois se sont designated under subsection 109.1(1), écoulés depuis le rejet de sa dernière less than 36 m onths, have passed since demande de protection ou le prononcé du their last application for protection was retrait ou du désistement de cette rejected or determined to be withdrawn demande par la Section de la protection or abandoned by the Refugee Protection des réfugiés ou le ministre. Division or the Minister. d) [Abrogé, 2012, ch. 17, art. 38] (d) [Repealed, 2012, c. 17, s. 38]
Exemption Exemption (2.1) The Minister may exempt from the (2.1) Le ministre peut exempter de application of paragraph (2)(b.1) or (c) l’application des alinéas (2)b.1) ou c) : (a) the nationals — or, in the case of a) les ressortissants d’un pays ou, dans le persons who do not have a country of cas de personnes qui n’ont pas de nationality, the former habitual residents nationalité, celles qui y avaient leur — of a country; résidence habituelle; (b) the nationals or former habitual b) ceux de tels ressortissants ou personnes residents of a country who, before they qui, avant leur départ du pa ys, en left the country, lived in a given part of habitaient une partie donnée; that country; and c) toute catégorie de ressortissants ou de (c) a class of nationals or former habitual personnes visés à l’alinéa a). residents of a country. Application Application (2.2) Toutefois, l’exemption ne s’applique (2.2) However, an exemption made pas aux personnes dont la demande under subsection (2.1) does not apply to d’asile a fait l’objet d’une décision par la persons in respect of whom, after the day Section de la protection des réfugiées ou, on which the exemption comes into en cas d’appel, par la Section d’appel des force, a decision is made respecting their réfugiés après l’entrée en vigueur de claim for refugee protection by the l’exemption. Refugee Protection Division or, if an Règlements appeal is made, by the Refugee Appeal (2.3) Les règlements régissent Division. l’application des paragraphes (2.1) et Regulations (2.2) et prévoient notamment les critères à (2.3) The regulations may govern any prendre en compte en vue de l’exemption. matter relating to the application of Restriction subsection (2.1) or (2.2) and may include (3) L’asile ne peut être conféré au provisions establishing the criteria to be demandeur dans les cas suivants : considered when an exemption is made. a) il est interdit de territoire pour raison Restriction de sécurité ou pour atteinte aux droits 69
(3) Refugee protection may not result humains ou i nternationaux ou criminalité from an application for protection if the organisée; person b) il est interdit de territoire pour grande (a) is determined to be inadmissible on criminalité pour déclaration de culpabilité grounds of security, violating human or au Canada pour une infraction à une loi international rights or organized fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement criminality; maximal d’au moins dix ans ou pour toute (b) is determined to be inadmissible on déclaration de culpabilité à l’extérieur du grounds of serious criminality with Canada pour une infraction qui, commise respect to a conviction in Canada of an au Canada, constituerait une infraction à offence under an Act of Parliament une loi fédérale punissable d’un punishable by a maximum term of emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix imprisonment of at least 10 years or with ans; respect to a conviction outside Canada c) il a ét é débouté de sa demande d’asile for an offence that, if committed in au titre de la section F de l’article premier Canada, would constitute an offence de la Convention sur les réfugiés; under an Act of Parliament punishable by d) il est nommé au certificat visé au a maximum term of imprisonment of at paragraphe 77(1). least 10 years; 2001, ch. 27, art. 112; (c) made a claim to refugee protection that was rejected on the basis of section F 2010, ch. 8, art. 15; of Article 1 of the Refugee Convention; 2012, ch. 17, art. 38, 60 et 84. or (d) is named in a certificate referred to in subsection 77(1). 2001, c. 27, s. 112; 2010, c. 8, s. 15; 2012, c. 17, ss. 38, 60, 84.
Consideration of application Examen de la demande 113. Consideration of an application for 113. Il est disposé de la demande comme protection shall be as follows: il suit : (a) an applicant whose claim to refugee a) le demandeur d’asile débouté ne peut protection has been rejected may present présenter que des éléments de preuve only new evidence that arose after the survenus depuis le rejet ou qui n’étaient rejection or was not reasonably available, alors pas normalement accessibles ou, or that the applicant could not reasonably s’ils l’étaient, qu’il n’était pas have been expected in the circumstances raisonnable, dans les circonstances, de to have presented, at the time of the s’attendre à ce qu’il les ait présentés au rejection; moment du rejet; (b) a hearing may be held if the Minister, b) une audience peut être tenue si le on the basis of prescribed factors, is of ministre l’estime requis compte tenu des the opinion that a hearing is required; facteurs réglementaires; (c) in the case of an applicant not c) s’agissant du de mandeur non vi sé au described in subsection 112(3), paragraphe 112(3), sur la base des articles 70
consideration shall be on t he basis of 96 à 98; sections 96 to 98; d) s’agissant du demandeur visé au (d) in the case of an applicant described paragraphe 112(3) — sauf celui visé au in subsection 112(3) — other than one sous-alinéa e)(i) ou (ii) —, sur la base des described in subparagraph (e)(i) or (ii) — éléments mentionnés à l’article 97 et, consideration shall be on the basis of the d’autre part : factors set out in section 97 and (i) soit du f ait que le demandeur interdit (i) in the case of an applicant for de territoire pour grande criminalité protection who is inadmissible on constitue un da nger pour le public au grounds of serious criminality, whether Canada, they are a danger to the public in Canada, (ii) soit, dans le cas de tout autre or demandeur, du fait que la demande (ii) in the case of any other applicant, devrait être rejetée en raison de la nature whether the application should be et de la gravité de ses actes passés ou du refused because of the nature and danger qu’il constitue pour la sécurité du severity of acts committed by the Canada; applicant or because of the danger that e) s’agissant des demandeurs ci-après, sur the applicant constitutes to the security of la base des articles 96 à 98 et, selon le cas, Canada; and du sous-alinéa d)(i) ou (ii) : (e) in the case of the following (i) celui qui est interdit de territoire pour applicants, consideration shall be on t he grande criminalité pour déclaration de basis of sections 96 t o 98 a nd culpabilité au Canada pour une infraction subparagraph (d)(i) or (ii), as the case à une loi fédérale punissable d’un may be: emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix i) an applicant who is determined to be ans et pour laquelle soit un inadmissible on grounds of serious emprisonnement de moins de deux ans a criminality with respect to a conviction été infligé, soit aucune peine in Canada punishable by a maximum d’emprisonnement n’a été imposée, term of imprisonment of at least 10 years (ii) celui qui est interdit de territoire pour for which a term of imprisonment of less grande criminalité pour déclaration de than two years — or no t erm of culpabilité à l’extérieur du C anada pour imprisonment — was imposed, and une infraction qui, commise au Canada, (ii) an applicant who is determined to be constituerait une infraction à une loi inadmissible on g rounds of serious fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement criminality with respect to a conviction maximal d’au moins dix ans, sauf s’il a of an offence outside Canada that, if été conclu qu’il est visé à la section F de committed in Canada, would constitute l’article premier de la Convention sur les an offence under an Act of Parliament réfugiés. punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, unless they are found to be a person referred to in section F of Article 1 of the Refugee Convention.
71
Effect of decision Effet de la décision 114. (1) A decision to allow the 114. (1) La décision accordant la application for protection has demande de protection a pour effet de (a) in the case of an applicant not conférer l’asile au demandeur; toutefois, described in subsection 112(3), the effect elle a pour effet, s’agissant de celui visé of conferring refugee protection; and au paragraphe 112(3), de surseoir, pour le (b) in the case of an applicant described pays ou le lieu en cause, à l a mesure de in subsection 112(3), the effect of staying renvoi le visant. the removal order with respect to a country or place in respect of which the Révocation du sursis applicant was determined to be in need (2) Le ministre peut révoquer le sursis s’il of protection. estime, après examen, sur la base de Cancellation of stay l’alinéa 113d) et conformément aux (2) If the Minister is of the opinion that règlements, des motifs qui l’ont justifié, the circumstances surrounding a stay of que les circonstances l’ayant amené ont the enforcement of a removal order have changé. changed, the Minister may re-examine, in accordance with paragraph 113(d) and Annulation de la décision the regulations, the grounds on which the (3) Le ministre peut annuler la décision application was allowed and may cancel ayant accordé la demande de protection the stay. s’il estime qu’elle découle de Vacation of determination présentations erronées sur un f ait (3) If the Minister is of the opinion that a important quant à un o bjet pertinent, ou decision to allow an application for de réticence sur ce fait. protection was obtained as a result of directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts on a relevant matter, the Minister may vacate the decision. Effect of vacation Effet de l’annulation (4) If a decision is vacated under (4) La décision portant annulation subsection (3), it is nullified and the emporte nullité de la décision initiale et la application for protection is deemed to demande de protection est réputée avoir have been rejected. été rejetée.
Principle of Non-refoulement Principe du non-refoulement Protection Principe 115. (1) A protected person or a person 115. (1) Ne peut être renvoyée dans un who is recognized as a Convention pays où elle risque la persécution du fait refugee by another country to which the de sa race, de sa religion, de sa person may be returned shall not be nationalité, de son appartenance à un removed from Canada to a country where groupe social ou de ses opinions they would be at risk of persecution for politiques, la torture ou des traitements ou reasons of race, religion, nationality, peines cruels et inusités, la personne membership in a particular social group protégée ou la personne dont il est statué 72
or political opinion or at risk of torture or que la qualité de réfugié lui a été reconnue cruel and unusual treatment or par un autre pays vers lequel elle peut être punishment. renvoyée. Exceptions Exclusion (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in the (2) Le paragraphe (1) ne s’applique pas à case of a person l’interdit de territoire : (a) who is inadmissible on grounds of a) pour grande criminalité qui, selon le serious criminality and who constitutes, ministre, constitue un danger pour le in the opinion of the Minister, a danger public au Canada; to the public in Canada; or b) pour raison de sécurité ou pour atteinte (b) who is inadmissible on grounds of aux droits humains ou i nternationaux ou security, violating human or international criminalité organisée si, selon le ministre, rights or organized criminality if, in the il ne devrait pas être présent au Canada en opinion of the Minister, the person raison soit de la nature et de la gravité de should not be allowed to remain in ses actes passés, soit du danger qu’il Canada on t he basis of the nature and constitue pour la sécurité du Canada. severity of acts committed or of danger Renvoi de réfugié to the security of Canada. (3) Une personne ne peut, après prononcé Removal of refugee d’irrecevabilité au titre de l’alinéa (3) A person, after a determination under 101(1)e), être renvoyée que vers le pays paragraph 101(1)(e) that the person’s d’où elle est arrivée au Canada sauf si le claim is ineligible, is to be sent to the pays vers lequel elle sera renvoyée a été country from which the person came to désigné au titre du p aragraphe 102(1) ou Canada, but may be sent to another que sa demande d’asile a été rejetée dans country if that country is designated le pays d’où elle est arrivée au Canada. under subsection 102(1) or if the country from which the person came to Canada has rejected their claim for refugee protection.
Proceedings Fonctionnement
170. The Refugee Protection Division, in 170. Dans toute affaire dont elle est saisie, any proceeding before it, la Section de la protection des réfugiés : (a) may inquire into any matter that it a) procède à t ous les actes qu’elle juge considers relevant to establishing utiles à la manifestation du bien-fondé de whether a claim is well-founded; la demande; (b) must hold a hearing; b) dispose de celle-ci par la tenue d’une (c) must notify the person who is the audience; subject of the proceeding and the c) convoque la personne en cause et le Minister of the hearing; ministre; (d) must provide the Minister, on request, d) transmet au ministre, sur demande, les with the documents and information renseignements et documents fournis au referred to in subsection 100(4); titre du paragraphe 100(4); 73
(d.1) may question the witnesses, d.1) peut interroger les témoins, including the person who is the subject notamment la personne en cause; of the proceeding; e) donne à la personne en cause et au (e) must give the person and the Minister ministre la possibilité de produire des a reasonable opportunity to present éléments de preuve, d’interroger des evidence, question witnesses and make témoins et de présenter des observations; representations; f) peut accueillir la demande d’asile sans (f) may, despite paragraph (b), allow a qu’une audience soit tenue si le ministre claim for refugee protection without a ne lui a p as, dans le délai prévu par les hearing, if the Minister has not notified règles, donné avis de son intention the Division, within the period set out in d’intervenir; the rules of the Board, of the Minister’s g) n’est pas liée par les règles légales ou intention to intervene; techniques de présentation de la preuve; (g) is not bound by any legal or technical h) peut recevoir les éléments qu’elle juge rules of evidence; crédibles ou dignes de foi en l’occurrence (h) may receive and base a decision on et fonder sur eux sa décision; evidence that is adduced in the i) peut admettre d’office les faits proceedings and considered credible or admissibles en justice et les faits trustworthy in the circumstances; and généralement reconnus et les (i) may take notice of any facts that may renseignements ou opi nions qui sont du be judicially noticed, any other generally ressort de sa spécialisation. recognized facts and any information or 2001, ch. 27, art. 170; opinion that is within its specialized 2010, ch. 8, art. 27. knowledge. 2001, c. 27, s. 170; 2010, c. 8, s. 27.
Refugee Appeal Division SECTION D’APPEL DES REFUGIES
Proceedings Procédure 171. In the case of a proceeding of the 171. S’agissant de la Section d’appel des Refugee Appeal Division, réfugiés : (a) the Division must give notice of any a) la section avise la personne en cause et hearing to the Minister and to the person le ministre de la tenue de toute audience; who is the subject of the appeal; a.1) sous réserve du pa ragraphe 110(4), (a.1) subject to subsection 110(4), if a elle donne à l a personne en cause et au hearing is held, the Division must give ministre la possibilité, dans le cadre de the person who is the subject of the toute audience, de produire des éléments appeal and the Minister the opportunity de preuve, d’interroger des témoins et de to present evidence, question witnesses présenter des observations; and make submissions; a.2) elle n’est pas liée par les règles (a.2) the Division is not bound b y any légales ou techniques de présentation de legal or technical rules of evidence; la preuve; (a.3) the Division may receive and base a a.3) elle peut recevoir les éléments de decision on e vidence that is adduced in preuve qu’elle juge crédibles ou dignes de 74
the proceedings and considered credible foi en l’occurrence et fonder sur eux sa or trustworthy in the circumstances; décision; (a.4) the Minister may, at any time a.4) le ministre peut, en tout temps avant before the Division makes a decision, que la section ne rende sa décision, sur after giving notice to the Division and to avis donné à celle-ci et à la personne en the person who is the subject of the cause, intervenir dans l’appel; appeal, intervene in the appeal; a.5) il peut, en tout temps avant que la (a.5) the Minister may, at any time section ne rende sa décision, produire des before the Division makes a decision, éléments de preuve documentaire et submit documentary evidence and make présenter des observations écrites à written submissions in support of the l’appui de son appel ou de son Minister’s appeal or intervention in the intervention dans l’appel; appeal; b) la section peut admettre d’office les (b) the Division may take notice of any faits admissibles en justice et les faits facts that may be judicially noticed and généralement reconnus et les of any other generally recognized facts renseignements ou opi nions qui sont du and any information or opinion that is ressort de sa spécialisation; within its specialized knowledge; and c) la décision du t ribunal constitué de (c) a decision of a panel of three trois commissaires a la même valeur de members of the Refugee Appeal Division précédent pour le tribunal constitué d’un has, for the Refugee Protection Division commissaire unique et la Section de la and for a panel of one member of the protection des réfugiés que celle qu’une Refugee Appeal Division, the same cour d’appel a pour une cour de première precedential value as a decision of an instance. appeal court has for a trial court. 2001, ch. 27, art. 171; 2001, c. 27, s. 171; 2010, ch. 8, art. 28; 2010, c. 8, s. 28; 2012, ch. 17, art. 52. 2012, c. 17, s. 52.
Proceedings Fonctionnement 173. The Immigration Division, in any 173. Dans toute affaire dont elle est saisie, proceeding before it, la Section de l’immigration : (a) must, where practicable, hold a a) dispose de celle-ci, dans la mesure du hearing; possible, par la tenue d’une audience; (b) must give notice of the proceeding to b) convoque la personne en cause et le the Minister and to the person who is the ministre à une audience et la tient dans les subject of the proceeding and hear the meilleurs délais; matter without delay; c) n’est pas liée par les règles légales ou (c) is not bound by any legal or technical techniques de présentation de la preuve; rules of evidence; and d) peut recevoir les éléments qu’elle juge (d) may receive and base a decision on crédibles ou dignes de foi en l’occurrence evidence adduced in the proceedings that et fonder sur eux sa décision. it considers credible or trustworthy in the circumstances.
75
Fonctionnement Proceedings 175. (1) Dans toute affaire dont elle est 175. (1) The Immigration Appeal saisie, la Section d’appel de l’immigration Division, in any proceeding before it, : (a) must, in the case of an appeal under a) dispose de l’appel formé au titre du subsection 63(4), hold a hearing; paragraphe 63(4) par la tenue d’une (b) is not bound by any legal or technical audience; rules of evidence; and b) n’est pas liée par les règles légales ou (c) may receive and base a d ecision on techniques de présentation de la preuve; evidence adduced in the proceedings that c) peut recevoir les éléments qu’elle juge it considers credible or trustworthy in the crédibles ou dignes de foi en l’occurrence circumstances. et fonder sur eux sa décision.
Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-23
Offence to disclose identity Infraction
18. (1) Subject to subsection (2), no 18. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), person shall disclose any information that nul ne peut communiquer des the person obtained or to which the informations qu’il a acquises ou person had access in the course of the auxquelles il avait accès dans l’exercice performance by that person of duties and des fonctions qui lui sont conférées en functions under this Act or the vertu de la présente loi ou l ors de sa participation by that person in the participation à l’exécution ou au contrôle administration or enforcement of this Act d’application de cette loi et qui and from which the identity of permettraient de découvrir l’identité : (a) any other person who is or was a a) d’une autre personne qui fournit ou a confidential source of information or fourni au Service des informations ou assistance to the Service, or une aide à titre confidentiel; (b) any person who is or was an employee b) d’une personne qui est ou é tait un engaged in covert operational activities of employé occupé à des activités the Service can be inferred. opérationnelles cachées du Service. Exceptions Exceptions (2) A person may disclose information (2) La communication visée au referred to in subsection (1) for the paragraphe (1) peut se faire dans purposes of the performance of duties and l’exercice de fonctions conférées en vertu functions under this Act or any other Act de la présente loi ou d e toute autre loi of Parliament or the administration or fédérale ou pour l’exécution ou l e enforcement of this Act or as required by contrôle d’application de la présente loi, any other law or in the circumstances si une autre règle de droit l’exige ou dans described in any of paragraphs 19(2)(a) to les circonstances visées aux alinéas (d). 19(2)a) à d). 76
Infraction Offence (3) Quiconque contrevient au paragraphe (3) Every one who contravenes (1) est coupable : subsection (1) a) soit d’un acte criminel et passible d’un (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and emprisonnement maximal de cinq ans; liable to imprisonment for a term not b) soit d’une infraction punissable par exceeding five years; or procédure sommaire. (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on 1984, ch. 21, art. 18. summary conviction. 1984, c. 21, s. 18.
Security Intelligence Review Committee Constitution du comité de surveillance
34. (1) There is hereby established a 34. (1) Est constitué le comité de committee, to be known as the Security surveillance des activités de Intelligence Review Committee, renseignement de sécurité, composé du consisting of a Chairman and not less président et de deux à q uatre autres than two and not more than four other membres, tous nommés par le members, all of whom shall be appointed gouverneur en conseil parmi les membres by the Governor in Council from among du Conseil privé de la Reine pour le members of the Queen’s Privy Council Canada qui ne font partie ni du Sénat ni for Canada who are not members of the de la Chambre des communes. Cette Senate or the House of Commons, after nomination est précédée de consultations consultation by the Prime Minister of entre le premier ministre du Canada, le Canada with the Leader of the Opposition chef de l’opposition à la Chambre des in the House of Commons and the leader communes et le chef de chacun des partis in the House of Commons of each party qui y disposent d’au moins douze having at least twelve members in that députés. House. Durée du mandat Term of office (2) Les membres du comité de (2) Each member of the Review surveillance sont nommés à titre Committee shall be appointed to hold inamovible pour une durée maximale de office during good behaviour for a term cinq ans. not exceeding five years. Renouvellement Re-appointment (3) Le mandat des membres du comité de (3) A member of the Review Committee surveillance est renouvelable pour une is eligible to be re-appointed for a term durée maximale identique. not exceeding five years. Rémunération et frais Expenses (4) Les membres du comité de (4) Each member of the Review surveillance ont le droit de recevoir, pour Committee is entitled to be paid, for each chaque jour qu’ils exercent les fonctions day that the member performs duties and qui leur sont conférées en vertu de la functions under this Act, such présente loi, la rémunération que fixe le remuneration as is fixed by the Governor gouverneur en conseil et sont indemnisés in Council and shall be paid reasonable des frais de déplacement et de séjour 77
travel and living expenses incurred by the entraînés par l’exercice de ces fonctions. member in the performance of those 1984, ch. 21, art. 34. duties and functions. 1984, c. 21, s. 34.
Procedure Procédure
39. (1) Subject to this Act, the Review 39. (1) Sous réserve des autres Committee may determine the procedure dispositions de la présente loi, le comité to be followed in the performance of any de surveillance peut déterminer la of its duties or functions. procédure à suivre dans l’exercice de ses Access to information fonctions. (2) Notwithstanding any other Act of Accès aux informations Parliament or any privilege under the law (2) Par dérogation à toute autre loi of evidence, but subject to subsection (3), fédérale ou toute immunité reconnue par the Review Committee is entitled le droit de la preuve, mais sous réserve (a) to have access to any information du paragraphe (3), le comité de under the control of the Service or of the surveillance : Inspector General that relates to the a) est autorisé à av oir accès aux performance of the duties and functions informations qui se rattachent à of the Committee and to receive from the l’exercice de ses fonctions et qui relèvent Inspector General, Director and du Service ou de l’inspecteur général et à employees such information, reports and recevoir de l’inspecteur général, du explanations as the Committee deems directeur et des employés les necessary for the performance of its informations, rapports et explications duties and functions; and dont il juge avoir besoin dans cet (b) during any investigation referred to in exercice; paragraph 38(c), to have access to any b) au cours des enquêtes visées à l’alinéa information under the control of the 38c), est autorisé à avoir accès aux deputy head concerned that is relevant to informations qui se rapportent à ces the investigation. enquêtes et qui relèvent de l’administrateur général concerné.
Canada Evidence Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. C-5
International Relations and National Relations internationales et défense et Defence and National Security sécurité nationales Definitions Définitions 38. The following definitions apply in this 38. Les définitions qui suivent section and in sections 38.01 to 38.15. s’appliquent au présent article et aux “judge” articles 38.01 à 38.15. 78
« juge » « instance » “judge” means the Chief Justice of the “proceeding” Federal Court or a judge of that Court « instance » Procédure devant un designated by the Chief Justice to conduct tribunal, un or ganisme ou une personne hearings under section 38.04. ayant le pouvoir de contraindre la “participant” production de renseignements. « participant » « juge » “participant” means a person who, in “judge” connection with a proceeding, is required « juge » Le juge en chef de la Cour to disclose, or expects to disclose or cause fédérale ou le juge de ce tribunal désigné the disclosure of, information. par le juge en chef pour statuer sur les “potentially injurious information” questions dont est saisi le tribunal en « renseignements potentiellement application de l'article 38.04. préjudiciables » « participant » “potentially injurious information” means “participant” information of a type that, if it were « participant » Personne qui, dans le disclosed to the public, could injure cadre d’une instance, est tenue de international relations or national defence divulguer ou p révoit de divulguer ou d e or national security. faire divulguer des renseignements. “proceeding” « poursuivant » « instance » “prosecutor” “proceeding” means a proceeding before « poursuivant » Représentant du a court, person or body with jurisdiction procureur général du Canada ou du to compel the production of information. procureur général d’une province, “prosecutor” particulier qui agit à titre de poursuivant « poursuivant » dans le cadre d’une instance ou l e “prosecutor” means an agent of the directeur des poursuites militaires, au Attorney General of Canada or of the sens de la Loi sur la défense nationale. Attorney General of a province, the « renseignements potentiellement Director of Military Prosecutions under préjudiciables » the National Defence Act or an individual “potentially injurious information” who acts as a prosecutor in a proceeding. « renseignements potentiellement “sensitive information” préjudiciables » Les renseignements qui, « renseignements sensibles » s’ils sont divulgués, sont susceptibles de “sensitive information” means porter préjudice aux relations information relating to international internationales ou à la défense ou à l a relations or national defence or national sécurité nationales. security that is in the possession of the « renseignements sensibles » Government of Canada, whether “sensitive information” originating from inside or outside Canada, « renseignements sensibles » Les and is of a type that the Government of renseignements, en provenance du Canada is taking measures to safeguard. Canada ou de l’étranger, qui concernent R.S., 1985, c. C-5, s. 38; les affaires internationales ou la défense 2001, c. 41, ss. 43, 141. ou la sécurité nationales, qui se trouvent Notice to Attorney General of Canada en la possession du gouvernement du 79
38.01 (1) Every participant who, in Canada et qui sont du t ype des connection with a proceeding, is required renseignements à l ’égard desquels celui- to disclose, or expects to disclose or cause ci prend des mesures de protection. the disclosure of, information that the L.R. (1985), ch. C-5, art. 38; participant believes is sensitive 2001, ch. 41, art. 43 et 141. information or potentially injurious Avis au procureur général du Canada information shall, as soon as possible, 38.01 (1) Tout participant qui, dans le notify the Attorney General of Canada in cadre d’une instance, est tenu de writing of the possibility of the divulguer ou p révoit de divulguer ou d e disclosure, and of the nature, date and faire divulguer des renseignements dont place of the proceeding. il croit qu’il s’agit de renseignements During a proceeding sensibles ou de renseignements (2) Every participant who believes that potentiellement préjudiciables est tenu sensitive information or potentially d’aviser par écrit, dès que possible, le injurious information is about to be procureur général du C anada de la disclosed, whether by the participant or possibilité de divulgation et de préciser another person, in the course of a dans l’avis la nature, la date et le lieu de proceeding shall raise the matter with the l’instance. person presiding at the proceeding and Au cours d’une instance notify the Attorney General of Canada in (2) Tout participant qui croit que des writing of the matter as soon as possible, renseignements sensibles ou de s whether or not notice has been given renseignements potentiellement under subsection (1). In such préjudiciables sont sur le point d’être circumstances, the person presiding at the divulgués par lui ou pa r une autre proceeding shall ensure that the personne au cours d’une instance est tenu information is not disclosed other than in de soulever la question devant la accordance with this Act. personne qui préside l’instance et Notice of disclosure from official d’aviser par écrit le procureur général du (3) An official, other than a participant, Canada de la question dès que possible, who believes that sensitive information or que ces renseignements aient fait ou non potentially injurious information may be l’objet de l’avis prévu au paragraphe (1). disclosed in connection with a proceeding Le cas échéant, la personne qui préside may notify the Attorney General of l’instance veille à ce q ue les Canada in writing of the possibility of the renseignements ne soient pas divulgués, disclosure, and of the nature, date and sauf en conformité avec la présente loi. place of the proceeding. Avis par un fonctionnaire During a proceeding (3) Le fonctionnaire — à l’exclusion (4) An official, other than a participant, d’un participant — qui croit que peuvent who believes that sensitive information or être divulgués dans le cadre d’une potentially injurious information is about instance des renseignements sensibles ou to be disclosed in the course of a des renseignements potentiellement proceeding may raise the matter with the préjudiciables peut aviser par écrit le person presiding at the proceeding. If the procureur général du C anada de la official raises the matter, he or she shall possibilité de divulgation; le cas échéant, notify the Attorney General of Canada in l’avis précise la nature, la date et le lieu 80
writing of the matter as soon as possible, de l’instance. whether or not notice has been given Au cours d’une instance under subsection (3), and the person (4) Le fonctionnaire — à l’exclusion presiding at the proceeding shall ensure d’un participant — qui croit que des that the information is not disclosed other renseignements sensibles ou de s than in accordance with this Act. renseignements potentiellement Military proceedings préjudiciables sont sur le point d’être (5) In the case of a proceeding under Part divulgués au cours d’une instance peut III of the National Defence Act, notice soulever la question devant la personne under any of subsections (1) to (4) shall qui préside l’instance; le cas échéant, il be given to both the Attorney General of est tenu d’aviser par écrit le procureur Canada and the Minister of National général du Canada de la question dès que Defence. possible, que ces renseignements aient Exception fait ou non l ’objet de l’avis prévu au (6) This section does not apply when paragraphe (3) et la personne qui préside (a) the information is disclosed by a l’instance veille à ce q ue les person to their solicitor in connection renseignements ne soient pas divulgués, with a proceeding, if the information is sauf en conformité avec la présente loi. relevant to that proceeding; Instances militaires (b) the information is disclosed to enable (5) Dans le cas d’une instance engagée the Attorney General of Canada, the sous le régime de la partie III de la Loi Minister of National Defence, a judge or a sur la défense nationale, les avis prévus à court hearing an appeal from, or a review l’un des paragraphes (1) à (4) sont of, an order of the judge to discharge their donnés à la fois au procureur général du responsibilities under section 38, t his Canada et au ministre de la Défense section and sections 38.02 to 38.13, 38.15 nationale. and 38.16; Exception (c) disclosure of the information is (6) Le présent article ne s’applique pas : authorized by the government institution a) à la communication de renseignements in which or for which the information was par une personne à son avocat dans le produced or, if the information was not cadre d’une instance, si ceux-ci produced in or for a government concernent l’instance; institution, the government institution in b) aux renseignements communiqués which it was first received; or dans le cadre de l’exercice des (d) the information is disclosed to an attributions du pr ocureur général du entity and, where applicable, for a Canada, du m inistre de la Défense purpose listed in the schedule. nationale, du j uge ou d’ un tribunal Exception d’appel ou d’examen au titre de l’article (7) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply 38, du présent article, des articles 38.02 à to a participant if a government institution 38.13 ou des articles 38.15 ou 38.16; referred to in paragraph (6)(c) advises the c) aux renseignements dont la participant that it is not necessary, in divulgation est autorisée par l’institution order to prevent disclosure of the fédérale qui les a produits ou pour information referred to in that paragraph, laquelle ils ont été produits ou, da ns le to give notice to the Attorney General of cas où i ls n’ont pas été produits par ou 81
Canada under subsection (1) or to raise pour une institution fédérale, par la the matter with the person presiding under première institution fédérale à l es avoir subsection (2). reçus; Schedule d) aux renseignements divulgués auprès (8) The Governor in Council may, by de toute entité mentionnée à l’annexe et, order, add to or delete from the schedule a le cas échéant, à une application figurant reference to any entity or purpose, or en regard d’une telle entité. amend such a reference. Exception 2001, c. 41, s. 43. (7) Les paragraphes (1) et (2) ne Disclosure prohibited s’appliquent pas au participant si une 38.02 (1) Subject to subsection 38.01(6), institution gouvernementale visée à no person shall disclose in connection l’alinéa (6)c) l’informe qu’il n’est pas with a proceeding nécessaire, afin d’éviter la divulgation (a) information about which notice is des renseignements visés à cet alinéa, de given under any of subsections 38.01(1) donner un a vis au procureur général du to (4); Canada au titre du p aragraphe (1) ou d e (b) the fact that notice is given to the soulever la question devant la personne Attorney General of Canada under any of présidant une instance au titre du subsections 38.01(1) to (4), or to the paragraphe (2). Attorney General of Canada and the Annexe Minister of National Defence under (8) Le gouverneur en conseil peut, par subsection 38.01(5); décret, ajouter, modifier ou supprimer la (c) the fact that an application is made to mention, à l’annexe, d’une entité ou the Federal Court under section 38.04 or d’une application figurant en regard that an appeal or review of an order made d’une telle entité. under any of subsections 38.06(1) to (3) 2001, ch. 41, art. 43. in connection with the application is Interdiction de divulgation instituted; or 38.02 (1) Sous réserve du pa ragraphe (d) the fact that an agreement is entered 38.01(6), nul ne peut divulguer, dans le into under section 38.031 or subsection cadre d’une instance : 38.04(6). a) les renseignements qui font l’objet Entities d’un avis donné au titre de l’un des (1.1) When an entity listed in the paragraphes 38.01(1) à (4); schedule, for any purpose listed there in b) le fait qu’un avis est donné au relation to that entity, makes a decision or procureur général du C anada au titre de order that would result in the disclosure l’un des paragraphes 38.01(1) à (4), ou à of sensitive information or potentially ce dernier et au ministre de la Défense injurious information, the entity shall not nationale au titre du paragraphe 38.01(5); disclose the information or cause it to be c) le fait qu'une demande a été présentée disclosed until notice of intention to à la Cour fédérale au titre de l'article disclose the information has been given to 38.04, qu'il a été interjeté appel d'une the Attorney General of Canada and a ordonnance rendue au titre de l'un des period of 10 days has elapsed after notice paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3) relativement à was given. une telle demande ou qu'une telle Exceptions ordonnance a été renvoyée pour examen; 82
(2) Disclosure of the information or the d) le fait qu’un accord a été conclu au facts referred to in subsection (1) is not titre de l’article 38.031 ou du paragraphe prohibited if 38.04(6). (a) the Attorney General of Canada Entités authorizes the disclosure in writing under (1.1) Dans le cas où une entité section 38.03 or by agreement under mentionnée à l’annexe rend, dans le section 38.031 or subsection 38.04(6); or cadre d’une application qui y est (b) a judge authorizes the disclosure mentionnée en regard de celle-ci, une under subsection 38.06(1) or (2) or a décision ou une ordonnance qui court hearing an appeal from, or a review entraînerait la divulgation de of, the order of the judge authorizes the renseignements sensibles ou de disclosure, and either the time provided to renseignements potentiellement appeal the order or judgment has expired préjudiciables, elle ne peut les divulguer or no further appeal is available. ou les faire divulguer avant que le 2001, c. 41, ss. 43, 141. procureur général du Canada ait été avisé Authorization by Attorney General of de ce fait et qu’il se soit écoulé un délai Canada de dix jours postérieur à l’avis. 38.03 (1) The Attorney General of Exceptions Canada may, at any time and subject to (2) La divulgation des renseignements ou any conditions that he or she considers des faits visés au paragraphe (1) n’est pas appropriate, authorize the disclosure of all interdite : or part of the information and facts the a) si le procureur général du C anada disclosure of which is prohibited under l’autorise par écrit au titre de l’article subsection 38.02(1). 38.03 ou pa r un a ccord conclu en Military proceedings application de l’article 38.031 ou du (2) In the case of a proceeding under Part paragraphe 38.04(6); III of the National Defence Act, the b) si le juge l’autorise au titre de l’un des Attorney General of Canada may paragraphes 38.06(1) ou (2) et que le authorize disclosure only with the délai prévu ou accordé pour en appeler a agreement of the Minister of National expiré ou, e n cas d’appel ou de renvoi Defence. pour examen, sa décision est confirmée Notice et les recours en appel sont épuisés. (3) The Attorney General of Canada shall, 2001, ch. 41, art. 43 et 141. within 10 days after the day on which he Autorisation de divulgation par le or she first receives a n otice about procureur général du Canada information under any of subsections 38.03 (1) Le procureur général du 38.01(1) to (4), notify in writing every Canada peut, à tout moment, autoriser la person who provided notice under section divulgation de tout ou partie des 38.01 about that information of his or her renseignements ou d es faits dont la decision with respect to disclosure of the divulgation est interdite par le paragraphe information. 38.02(1) et assortir son autorisation des 2001, c. 41, s. 43. conditions qu’il estime indiquées. Disclosure agreement Instances militaires 38.031 (1) The Attorney General of (2) Dans le cas d’une instance engagée Canada and a person who has given sous le régime de la partie III de la Loi 83
notice under subsection 38.01(1) or (2) sur la défense nationale, le procureur and is not required to disclose information général du C anada ne peut autoriser la but wishes, in connection with a divulgation qu’avec l’assentiment du proceeding, to disclose any facts referred ministre de la Défense nationale. to in paragraphs 38.02(1)(b) to (d) or Notification information about which he or she gave (3) Dans les dix jours suivant la réception the notice, or to cause that disclosure, du premier avis donné au titre de l’un des may, before the person applies to the paragraphes 38.01(1) à (4) relativement à Federal Court under paragraph des renseignements donnés, le procureur 38.04(2)(c), enter into an agreement that général du Canada notifie par écrit sa permits the disclosure of part of the facts décision relative à l a divulgation de ces or information or disclosure of the facts renseignements à toutes les personnes qui or information subject to conditions. ont donné un tel avis. No application to Federal Court 2001, ch. 41, art. 43. (2) If an agreement is entered into under Accord de divulgation subsection (1), the person may not apply 38.031 (1) Le procureur général du to the Federal Court under paragraph Canada et la personne ayant donné l’avis 38.04(2)(c) with respect to the prévu aux paragraphes 38.01(1) ou ( 2) information about which he or she gave qui n’a pas l’obligation de divulguer des notice to the Attorney General of Canada renseignements dans le cadre d’une under subsection 38.01(1) or (2). instance, mais veut divulguer ou faire 2001, c. 41, ss. 43, 141. divulguer les renseignements qui ont fait Application to Federal Court — Attorney l’objet de l’avis ou les faits visés aux General of Canada alinéas 38.02(1) b) à d), peuvent, avant 38.04 (1) The Attorney General of que cette personne présente une demande Canada may, at any time and in any à la Cour fédérale au titre de l’alinéa circumstances, apply to the Federal Court 38.04(2) c), conclure un accord for an order with respect to the disclosure prévoyant la divulgation d’une partie des of information about which notice was renseignements ou de s faits ou l eur given under any of subsections 38.01(1) divulgation assortie de conditions. to (4). Exclusion de la demande à la Cour Application to Federal Court — general fédérale (2) If, with respect to information about (2) Si un a ccord est conclu, la personne which notice was given under any of ne peut présenter de demande à la Cour subsections 38.01(1) to (4), the Attorney fédérale au titre de l’alinéa 38.04(2) c) General of Canada does not provide relativement aux renseignements ayant notice of a d ecision in accordance with fait l’objet de l’avis qu’elle a donné au subsection 38.03(3) or, other than by an procureur général du Canada au titre des agreement under section 38.031, paragraphes 38.01(1) ou (2). authorizes the disclosure of only part of 2001, ch. 41, art. 43 et 141. the information or disclosure subject to Demande à l a Cour fédérale : procureur any conditions, général du Canada (a) the Attorney General of Canada shall 38.04 (1) Le procureur général du apply to the Federal Court for an order Canada peut, à tout moment et en toutes with respect to disclosure of the circonstances, demander à l a Cour 84
information if a person who gave notice fédérale de rendre une ordonnance under subsection 38.01(1) or (2) is a portant sur la divulgation de witness; renseignements à l ’égard desquels il a (b) a person, other than a witness, who is reçu un avis au titre de l’un des required to disclose information in paragraphes 38.01(1) à (4). connection with a proceeding shall apply Demande à l a Cour fédérale : to the Federal Court for an order with dispositions générales respect to disclosure of the information; (2) Si, en ce qui concerne des and renseignements à l ’égard desquels il a (c) a person who is not required to reçu un avis au titre de l’un des disclose information in connection with a paragraphes 38.01(1) à (4), le procureur proceeding but who wishes to disclose it général du Canada n’a pas notifié sa or to cause its disclosure may apply to the décision à l’auteur de l’avis en Federal Court for an order with respect to conformité avec le paragraphe 38.03(3) disclosure of the information. ou, sauf par un accord conclu au titre de Notice to Attorney General of Canada l’article 38.031, i l a autorisé la (3) A person who applies to the Federal divulgation d’une partie des Court under paragraph (2)(b) or (c) shall renseignements ou a assorti de conditions provide notice of the application to the son autorisation de divulgation : Attorney General of Canada. a) il est tenu de demander à la Cour Court records fédérale de rendre une ordonnance (4) An application under this section is concernant la divulgation des confidential. Subject to section 38.12, the renseignements si la personne qui l’a Chief Administrator of the Courts avisé au titre des paragraphes 38.01(1) ou Administration Service may take any (2) est un témoin; measure that he or she considers b) la personne — à l’exclusion d’un appropriate to protect the confidentiality témoin — qui a l’obligation de divulguer of the application and the information to des renseignements dans le cadre d’une which it relates. instance est tenue de demander à la Cour Procedure fédérale de rendre une ordonnance (5) As soon as the Federal Court is seized concernant la divulgation des of an application under this section, the renseignements; judge c) la personne qui n’a pas l’obligation de (a) shall hear the representations of the divulguer des renseignements dans le Attorney General of Canada and, in the cadre d’une instance, mais qui veut en case of a proceeding under Part III of the divulguer ou e n faire divulguer, peut National Defence Act, the Minister of demander à l a Cour fédérale de rendre National Defence, concerning the identity une ordonnance concernant la of all parties or witnesses whose interests divulgation des renseignements. may be affected by either the prohibition Notification du procureur général of disclosure or the conditions to which (3) La personne qui présente une disclosure is subject, and concerning the demande à l a Cour fédérale au titre des persons who should be given notice of alinéas (2)b) ou c) en notifie le procureur any hearing of the matter; général du Canada. (b) shall decide whether it is necessary to Dossier du tribunal 85
hold any hearing of the matter; (4) Toute demande présentée en (c) if he or she decides that a hearing application du présent article est should be held, shall confidentielle. Sous réserve de l’article (i) determine who should be given notice 38.12, l’administrateur en chef du of the hearing, Service administratif des tribunaux peut (ii) order the Attorney General of Canada prendre les mesures qu’il estime to notify those persons, and indiquées en vue d’assurer la (iii) determine the content and form of the confidentialité de la demande et des notice; and renseignements sur lesquels elle porte. (d) if he or she considers it appropriate in Procédure the circumstances, may give any person (5) Dès que la Cour fédérale est saisie the opportunity to make representations. d’une demande présentée au titre du Disclosure agreement présent article, le juge : (6) After the Federal Court is seized of an a) entend les observations du pr ocureur application made under paragraph (2)(c) général du Canada — et du ministre de la or, in the case of an appeal from, or a Défense nationale dans le cas d’une review of, an order of the judge made instance engagée sous le régime de la under any of subsections 38.06(1) to (3) partie III de la Loi sur la défense in connection with that application, before nationale — sur l’identité des parties ou the appeal or review is disposed of, des témoins dont les intérêts sont touchés (a) the Attorney General of Canada and par l’interdiction de divulgation ou l es the person who made the application may conditions dont l’autorisation de enter into an agreement that permits the divulgation est assortie et sur les disclosure of part of the facts referred to personnes qui devraient être avisées de la in paragraphs 38.02(1)(b) to (d) or part of tenue d’une audience; the information or disclosure of the facts b) décide s’il est nécessaire de tenir une or information subject to conditions; and audience; (b) if an agreement is entered into, the c) s’il estime qu’une audience est Court’s consideration of the application nécessaire : or any hearing, review or appeal shall be (i) spécifie les personnes qui devraient en terminated. être avisées, Termination of Court consideration, (ii) ordonne au procureur général du hearing, review or appeal Canada de les aviser, (7) Subject to subsection (6), after the (iii) détermine le contenu et les modalités Federal Court is seized of an application de l’avis; made under this section or, in the case of d) s’il l’estime indiqué en l’espèce, peut an appeal from, or a review of, an order donner à quiconque la possibilité de of the judge made under any of présenter des observations. subsections 38.06(1) to (3), before the Accord de divulgation appeal or review is disposed of, if the (6) Après la saisine de la Cour fédérale Attorney General of Canada authorizes d’une demande présentée au titre de the disclosure of all or part of the l’alinéa (2)c) ou l ’institution d’un appel information or withdraws conditions to ou le renvoi pour examen d’une which the disclosure is subject, the ordonnance du j uge rendue en vertu de Court’s consideration of the application l’un des paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3) 86
or any hearing, appeal or review shall be relativement à cette demande, et avant terminated in relation to that information, qu’il soit disposé de l’appel ou de to the extent of the authorization or the l’examen : withdrawal. a) le procureur général du Canada peut 2001, c. 41, ss. 43, 141. conclure avec l’auteur de la demande un Report relating to proceedings accord prévoyant la divulgation d’une 38.05 If he or she receives notice of a partie des renseignements ou des faits hearing under paragraph 38.04(5)(c), a visés aux alinéas 38.02(1)b) à d) ou leur person presiding or designated to preside divulgation assortie de conditions; at the proceeding to which the b) si un a ccord est conclu, le tribunal information relates or, if no pe rson is n’est plus saisi de la demande et il est designated, the person who has the mis fin à l ’audience, à l’appel ou à authority to designate a person to preside l’examen. may, within 10 da ys after the day on Fin de l’examen judiciaire which he or she receives the notice, (7) Sous réserve du p aragraphe (6), si le provide the judge with a report procureur général du Canada autorise la concerning any matter relating to the divulgation de tout ou partie des proceeding that the person considers may renseignements ou supprime les be of assistance to the judge. conditions dont la divulgation est assortie 2001, c. 41, s. 43. après la saisine de la Cour fédérale aux Disclosure order termes du présent article et, en cas 38.06 (1) Unless the judge concludes that d’appel ou d’ examen d’une ordonnance the disclosure of the information would du juge rendue en vertu de l’un des be injurious to international relations or paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3), avant qu’il en national defence or national security, the soit disposé, le tribunal n’est plus saisi de judge may, by order, authorize the la demande et il est mis fin à l’audience, disclosure of the information. à l’appel ou à l’examen à l’égard de tels Disclosure order des renseignements dont la divulgation (2) If the judge concludes that the est autorisée ou n’ est plus assortie de disclosure of the information would be conditions. injurious to international relations or 2001, ch. 41, art. 43 et 141. national defence or national security but Rapport sur l’instance that the public interest in disclosure 38.05 Si la personne qui préside ou est outweighs in importance the public désignée pour présider l’instance à interest in non-disclosure, the judge may laquelle est liée l’affaire ou, à d éfaut de by order, after considering both the public désignation, la personne qui est habilitée interest in disclosure and the form of and à effectuer la désignation reçoit l’avis conditions to disclosure that are most visé à l’alinéa 38.04(5)c), elle peut, dans likely to limit a ny injury to international les dix jours, fournir au juge un rapport relations or national defence or national sur toute question relative à l ’instance security resulting from disclosure, qu’elle estime utile à celui-ci. authorize the disclosure, subject to any 2001, ch. 41, art. 43. conditions that the judge considers Ordonnance de divulgation appropriate, of all of the information, a 38.06 (1) Le juge peut rendre une part or summary of the information, or a ordonnance autorisant la divulgation des 87
written admission of facts relating to the renseignements, sauf s’il conclut qu’elle information. porterait préjudice aux relations Order confirming prohibition internationales ou à la défense ou à la (3) If the judge does not authorize sécurité nationales. disclosure under subsection (1) or (2), the Divulgation modifiée judge shall, by order, confirm the (2) Si le juge conclut que la divulgation prohibition of disclosure. des renseignements porterait préjudice Evidence aux relations internationales ou à la (3.1) The judge may receive into evidence défense ou à l a sécurité nationales, mais anything that, in the opinion of the judge, que les raisons d’intérêt public qui is reliable and appropriate, even if it justifient la divulgation l’emportent sur would not otherwise be admissible under les raisons d’intérêt public qui justifient Canadian law, and may base his or her la non-divulgation, il peut par decision on that evidence. ordonnance, compte tenu des raisons Introduction into evidence d’intérêt public qui justifient la (4) A person who wishes to introduce into divulgation ainsi que de la forme et des evidence material the disclosure of which conditions de divulgation les plus is authorized under subsection (2) but susceptibles de limiter le préjudice porté who may not be able to do s o in a aux relations internationales ou à la proceeding by reason of the rules of défense ou à l a sécurité nationales, admissibility that apply in the proceeding autoriser, sous réserve des conditions may request from a judge an order qu’il estime indiquées, la divulgation de permitting the introduction into evidence tout ou pa rtie des renseignements, d’un of the material in a form or subject to any résumé de ceux-ci ou d’un aveu écrit des conditions fixed by that judge, as long as faits qui y sont liés. that form and those conditions comply Confirmation de l’interdiction with the order made under subsection (2). (3) Dans le cas où le juge n’autorise pas Relevant factors la divulgation au titre des paragraphes (1) (5) For the purpose of subsection (4), the ou (2), il rend une ordonnance judge shall consider all the factors that confirmant l’interdiction de divulgation. would be relevant for a determination of Preuve admissibility in the proceeding. (3.1) Le juge peut recevoir et admettre en 2001, c. 41, s. 43. preuve tout élément qu’il estime digne de Notice of order foi et approprié — même si le droit 38.07 The judge may order the Attorney canadien ne prévoit pas par ailleurs son General of Canada to give notice of an admissibilité — et peut fonder sa order made under any of subsections décision sur cet élément. 38.06(1) to (3) to any person who, in the Admissibilité en preuve opinion of the judge, should be notified. (4) La personne qui veut faire admettre 2001, c. 41, s. 43. en preuve ce qui a fait l’objet d’une Automatic review autorisation de divulgation prévue au 38.08 If the judge determines that a party paragraphe (2), mais qui ne pourra peut- to the proceeding whose interests are être pas le faire à c ause des règles adversely affected by an order made d’admissibilité applicables à l’instance, under any of subsections 38.06(1) to (3) peut demander à un juge de rendre une 88
was not given the opportunity to make ordonnance autorisant la production en representations under paragraph preuve des renseignements, du résumé ou 38.04(5)(d), the judge shall refer the order de l’aveu dans la forme ou aux to the Federal Court of Appeal for review. conditions que celui-ci détermine, dans la 2001, c. 41, s. 43. mesure où telle forme ou telles Appeal to Federal Court of Appeal conditions sont conformes à 38.09 (1) An order made under any of l’ordonnance rendue au titre du subsections 38.06(1) to (3) may be paragraphe (2). appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. Facteurs pertinents Limitation period for appeal (5) Pour l’application du paragraphe (4), (2) An appeal shall be brought within 10 le juge prend en compte tous les facteurs days after the day on w hich the order is qui seraient pertinents pour statuer sur made or within any further time that the l’admissibilité en preuve au cours de Court considers appropriate in the l’instance. circumstances. 2001, ch. 41, art. 43. 2001, c. 41, s. 43. Avis de la décision Limitation periods for appeals to Supreme 38.07 Le juge peut ordonner au procureur Court of Canada général du Canada d’aviser de 38.1 Notwithstanding any other Act of l’ordonnance rendue en application de Parliament, l’un des paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3) toute (a) an application for leave to appeal to personne qui, de l’avis du j uge, devrait the Supreme Court of Canada from a être avisée. judgment made on a ppeal shall be made 2001, ch. 41, art. 43. within 10 days after the day on which the Examen automatique judgment appealed from is made or 38.08 Si le juge conclut qu’une partie à within any further time that the Supreme l’instance dont les intérêts sont lésés par Court of Canada considers appropriate in une ordonnance rendue en application de the circumstances; and l’un des paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3) n’a (b) if leave to appeal is granted, the pas eu la possibilité de présenter ses appeal shall be brought in the manner set observations au titre de l’alinéa out in subsection 60(1) of the Supreme 38.04(5)d), il renvoie l’ordonnance à la Court Act but within the time specified by Cour d’appel fédérale pour examen. the Supreme Court of Canada. 2001, ch. 41, art. 43. 2001, c. 41, s. 43. Appel à la Cour d’appel fédérale Special rules 38.09 (1) Il peut être interjeté appel d’une 38.11 (1) A hearing under subsection ordonnance rendue en application de l’un 38.04(5) or an appeal or review of an des paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3) devant la order made under any of subsections Cour d’appel fédérale. 38.06(1) to (3) shall be heard in private Délai and, at the request of either the Attorney (2) Le délai dans lequel l’appel peut être General of Canada or, in the case of a interjeté est de dix jours suivant la date proceeding under Part III of the National de l’ordonnance frappée d’appel, mais la Defence Act, the Minister of National Cour d’appel fédérale peut le proroger si Defence, shall be heard in the National elle l’estime indiqué en l’espèce. Capital Region, as described in the 2001, ch. 41, art. 43. 89
schedule to the National Capital Act. Délai de demande d’autorisation d’en Ex parte representations appeler à la Cour suprême du Canada (2) The judge conducting a hearing under 38.1 Malgré toute autre loi fédérale : subsection 38.04(5) or the court hearing a) le délai de demande d’autorisation an appeal or review of an order made d’en appeler à la Cour suprême du under any of subsections 38.06(1) to (3) Canada est de dix jours suivant le may give any person who makes jugement frappé d’appel, mais ce tribunal representations under paragraph peut proroger le délai s’il l’estime 38.04(5)(d), and shall give the Attorney indiqué en l’espèce; General of Canada and, in the case of a b) dans les cas où l ’autorisation est proceeding under Part III of the National accordée, l’appel est interjeté Defence Act, the Minister of National conformément au paragraphe 60(1) de la Defence, the opportunity to make Loi sur la Cour suprême, mais le délai representations ex parte. qui s’applique est celui qu’a fixé la Cour 2001, c. 41, s. 43. suprême du Canada. Protective order 2001, ch. 41, art. 43. 38.12 (1) The judge conducting a hearing Règles spéciales under subsection 38.04(5) or the court 38.11 (1) Les audiences prévues au hearing an appeal or review of an order paragraphe 38.04(5) et l’audition de made under any of subsections 38.06(1) l’appel ou de l’examen d’une ordonnance to (3) may make any order that the judge rendue en application de l’un des or the court considers appropriate in the paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3) sont tenues à circumstances to protect the huis clos et, à la demande soit du confidentiality of the information to procureur général du Canada, soit du which the hearing, appeal or review ministre de la Défense nationale dans le relates. cas des instances engagées sous le régime Court records de la partie III de la Loi sur la défense (2) The court records relating to the nationale, elles ont lieu dans la région de hearing, appeal or review are confidential. la capitale nationale définie à l’annexe de The judge or the court may order that the la Loi sur la capitale nationale. records be sealed and kept in a location to Présentation d’arguments en l’absence which the public has no access. d’autres parties 2001, c. 41, s. 43. (2) Le juge saisi d’une affaire au titre du Certificate of Attorney General of Canada paragraphe 38.04(5) ou le tribunal saisi 38.13 (1) The Attorney General of de l’appel ou de l’examen d’une Canada may personally issue a certificate ordonnance rendue en application de l’un that prohibits the disclosure of des paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3) donne au information in connection with a procureur général du Canada — et au proceeding for the purpose of protecting ministre de la Défense nationale dans le information obtained in confidence from, cas d’une instance engagée sous le or in relation to, a foreign entity as régime de la partie III de la Loi sur la defined in subsection 2(1) of the Security défense nationale — la possibilité de of Information Act or for the purpose of présenter ses observations en l’absence protecting national defence or national d’autres parties. Il peut en faire de même security. The certificate may only be pour les personnes qu’il entend en 90
issued after an order or decision that application de l’alinéa 38.04(5)d). would result in the disclosure of the 2001, ch. 41, art. 43. information to be subject to the certificate Ordonnance de confidentialité has been made under this or any other Act 38.12 (1) Le juge saisi d’une affaire au of Parliament. titre du pa ragraphe 38.04(5) ou l e Military proceedings tribunal saisi de l’appel ou de l’examen (2) In the case of a proceeding under Part d’une ordonnance rendue en application III of the National Defence Act, the de l’un des paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3) Attorney General of Canada may issue peut rendre toute ordonnance qu’il estime the certificate only with the agreement, indiquée en l’espèce en vue de protéger given personally, of the Minister of la confidentialité des renseignements sur National Defence. lesquels porte l’audience, l’appel ou Service of certificate l’examen. (3) The Attorney General of Canada shall Dossier cause a copy of the certificate to be (2) Le dossier ayant trait à l ’audience, à served on l’appel ou à l’examen est confidentiel. Le (a) the person presiding or designated to juge ou l e tribunal saisi peut ordonner preside at the proceeding to which the qu’il soit placé sous scellé et gardé dans information relates or, if no pe rson is un lieu interdit au public. designated, the person who has the 2001, ch. 41, art. 43. authority to designate a person to preside; Certificat du pr ocureur général du (b) every party to the proceeding; Canada (c) every person who gives notice under 38.13 (1) Le procureur général du section 38.01 i n connection with the Canada peut délivrer personnellement un proceeding; certificat interdisant la divulgation de (d) every person who, in connection with renseignements dans le cadre d’une the proceeding, may disclose, is required instance dans le but de protéger soit des to disclose or may cause the disclosure of renseignements obtenus à t itre the information about which the Attorney confidentiel d’une entité étrangère — au General of Canada has received notice sens du paragraphe 2(1) de la Loi sur la under section 38.01; protection de l’information — ou qui (e) every party to a hearing under concernent une telle entité, soit la subsection 38.04(5) or to an appeal of an défense ou la sécurité nationales. La order made under any of subsections délivrance ne peut être effectuée qu’après 38.06(1) to (3) in relation to the la prise, au titre de la présente loi ou de information; toute autre loi fédérale, d’une ordonnance (f) the judge who conducts a hearing ou d’une décision qui entraînerait la under subsection 38.04(5) and any court divulgation des renseignements devant that hears an appeal from, or review of, an faire l’objet du certificat. order made under any of subsections Instances militaires 38.06(1) to (3) in relation to the (2) Dans le cas d’une instance engagée information; and sous le régime de la partie III de la Loi (g) any other person who, in the opinion sur la défense nationale, le procureur of the Attorney General of Canada, général du Canada ne peut délivrer de should be served. certificat qu’avec l’assentiment du 91
Filing of certificate ministre de la Défense nationale donné (4) The Attorney General of Canada shall personnellement par celui-ci. cause a copy of the certificate to be filed Signification (a) with the person responsible for the (3) Le procureur général du Canada fait records of the proceeding to which the signifier une copie du certificat : information relates; and a) à la personne qui préside ou e st (b) in the Registry of the Federal Court désignée pour présider l’instance à and the registry of any court that hears an laquelle sont liés les renseignements ou, appeal from, or review of, an order made à défaut de désignation, à la personne qui under any of subsections 38.06(1) to (3). est habilitée à effectuer la désignation; Effect of certificate b) à toute partie à l’instance; (5) If the Attorney General of Canada c) à toute personne qui donne l’avis issues a certificate, then, notwithstanding prévu à l’article 38.01 da ns le cadre de any other provision of this Act, disclosure l’instance; of the information shall be prohibited in d) à toute personne qui, dans le cadre de accordance with the terms of the l’instance, a l’obligation de divulguer ou certificate. pourrait divulguer ou f aire divulguer les Statutory Instruments Act does not apply renseignements à l ’égard desquels le (6) The Statutory Instruments Act does procureur général du Canada a été avisé not apply to a certificate issued under en application de l’article 38.01; subsection (1). e) à toute partie aux procédures engagées Publication en application du paragraphe 38.04(5) ou (7) The Attorney General of Canada shall, à l’appel d’une ordonnance rendue en without delay after a certificate is issued, application de l’un des paragraphes cause the certificate to be published in the 38.06(1) à (3) en ce qui concerne les Canada Gazette. renseignements; Restriction f) au juge qui tient une audience en (8) The certificate and any matters arising application du pa ragraphe 38.04(5) et à out of it are not subject to review or to be tout tribunal saisi de l’appel ou de restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside l’examen d’une ordonnance rendue en or otherwise dealt with, except in application de l’un des paragraphes accordance with section 38.131. 38.06(1) à (3) en ce qui concerne les Expiration renseignements; (9) The certificate expires 15 years after g) à toute autre personne à laquelle, de the day on which it is issued and may be l’avis du pr ocureur général du C anada, reissued. une copie du certificat devrait être 2001, c. 41, s. 43. signifiée. Application for review of certificate Dépôt du certificat 38.131 (1) A party to the proceeding (4) Le procureur général du Canada fait referred to in section 38.13 may apply to déposer une copie du certificat : the Federal Court of Appeal for an order a) auprès de la personne responsable des varying or cancelling a certificate issued dossiers relatifs à l’instance; under that section on the grounds referred b) au greffe de la Cour fédérale et à celui to in subsection (8) or (9), as the case may de tout tribunal saisi de l’appel ou d e be. l’examen d’une ordonnance rendue en 92
Notice to Attorney General of Canada application de l’un des paragraphes (2) The applicant shall give notice of the 38.06(1) à (3). application to the Attorney General of Effet du certificat Canada. (5) Une fois délivré, le certificat a pour Military proceedings effet, malgré toute autre disposition de la (3) In the case of proceedings under Part présente loi, d’interdire, selon ses termes, III of the National Defence Act, notice la divulgation des renseignements. under subsection (2) shall be given to Exclusion both the Attorney General of Canada and (6) La Loi sur les textes réglementaires the Minister of National Defence. ne s’applique pas aux certificats délivrés Single judge au titre du paragraphe (1). (4) Notwithstanding section 16 of the Publication Federal Court Act, for the purposes of the (7) Dès que le certificat est délivré, le application, the Federal Court of Appeal procureur général du Canada le fait consists of a single judge of that Court. publier dans la Gazette du Canada. Admissible information Restriction (5) In considering the application, the (8) Le certificat ou toute question qui en judge may receive into evidence anything découle n’est susceptible de révision, de that, in the opinion of the judge, is restriction, d’interdiction, d’annulation, reliable and appropriate, even if it would de rejet ou de toute autre forme not otherwise be admissible under d’intervention que sous le régime de Canadian law, and may base a l’article 38.131. determination made under any of Durée de validité subsections (8) to (10) on that evidence. (9) Le certificat expire à l a fin d’une Special rules and protective order période de quinze ans à compter de la (6) Sections 38.11 a nd 38.12 apply, with date de sa délivrance et peut être délivré any necessary modifications, to an de nouveau. application made under subsection (1). 2001, ch. 41, art. 43. Expedited consideration Demande de révision du certificat (7) The judge shall consider the 38.131 (1) Toute partie à l’instance visée application as soon as reasonably à l’article 38.13 peut demander à la Cour possible, but not later than 10 da ys after d’appel fédérale de rendre une the application is made under subsection ordonnance modifiant ou annulant un (1). certificat délivré au titre de cet article Varying the certificate pour les motifs mentionnés aux (8) If the judge determines that some of paragraphes (8) ou (9), selon le cas. the information subject to the certificate Notification du pr ocureur général du does not relate either to information Canada obtained in confidence from, or in (2) Le demandeur en avise le procureur relation to, a foreign entity as defined in général du Canada. subsection 2(1) of the Security of Instance militaire Information Act, or to national defence or (3) Dans le cas d’une instance engagée national security, the judge shall make an sous le régime de la partie III de la Loi order varying the certificate accordingly. sur la défense nationale, l’avis prévu au Cancelling the certificate paragraphe (2) est donné à la fois au 93
(9) If the judge determines that none of procureur général du Canada et au the information subject to the certificate ministre de la Défense nationale. relates to information obtained in Juge seul confidence from, or in relation to, a (4) Par dérogation à l’article 16 de la Loi foreign entity as defined in subsection sur la Cour fédérale, la Cour d’appel 2(1) of the Security of Information Act, or fédérale est constituée d’un seul juge de to national defence or national security, ce tribunal pour l’étude de la demande. the judge shall make an order cancelling Renseignements pertinents the certificate. (5) Pour l’étude de la demande, le juge Confirming the certificate peut recevoir et admettre en preuve tout (10) If the judge determines that all of the élément qu’il estime digne de foi et information subject to the certificate approprié — même si le droit canadien relates to information obtained in ne prévoit pas par ailleurs son confidence from, or in relation to, a admissibilité — et peut se fonder sur cet foreign entity as defined in subsection élément pour rendre sa décision au titre 2(1) of the Security of Information Act, or de l’un des paragraphes (8) à (10). to national defence or national security, Règles spéciales et ordonnance de the judge shall make an order confirming confidentialité the certificate. (6) Les articles 38.11 et 38.12 Determination is final s’appliquent, avec les adaptations (11) Notwithstanding any other Act of nécessaires, à l a demande présentée au Parliament, a determination of a judge titre du paragraphe (1). under any of subsections (8) to (10) is Traitement expéditif final and is not subject to review or (7) Le juge étudie la demande le plus tôt appeal by any court. possible, mais au plus tard dans les dix Publication jours suivant la présentation de la (12) If a certificate is varied or cancelled demande au titre du paragraphe (1). under this section, the Attorney General Modification du certificat of Canada shall, as soon as possible after (8) Si le juge estime qu’une partie des the decision of the judge and in a manner renseignements visés par le certificat ne that mentions the original publication of porte pas sur des renseignements obtenus the certificate, cause to be published in à titre confidentiel d’une entité étrangère the Canada Gazette — au sens du paragraphe 2(1) de la Loi (a) the certificate as varied under sur la protection de l’information — ou subsection (8); or qui concernent une telle entité ni sur la (b) a notice of the cancellation of the défense ou la sécurité nationales, il certificate under subsection (9). modifie celui-ci en conséquence par 2001, c. 41, s. 43; ordonnance. 2004, c. 12, s. 19(E). Révocation du certificat Protection of right to a fair trial (9) Si le juge estime qu’aucun 38.14 (1) The person presiding at a renseignement visé par le certificat ne criminal proceeding may make any order porte sur des renseignements obtenus à that he or she considers appropriate in the titre confidentiel d’une entité étrangère circumstances to protect the right of the — au sens du paragraphe 2(1) de la Loi accused to a fair trial, as long as that order sur la protection de l’information — ou 94
complies with the terms of any order qui concernent une telle entité, ni sur la made under any of subsections 38.06(1) défense ou la sécurité nationales, il to (3) in relation to that proceeding, any révoque celui-ci par ordonnance. judgment made on appeal from, or review Confirmation du certificat of, the order, or any certificate issued (10) Si le juge estime que tous les under section 38.13. renseignements visés par le certificat Potential orders portent sur des renseignements obtenus à (2) The orders that may be made under titre confidentiel d’une entité étrangère subsection (1) include, but are not limited — au sens du paragraphe 2(1) de la Loi to, the following orders: sur la protection de l’information — ou (a) an order dismissing specified counts qui concernent une telle entité, ou sur la of the indictment or information, or défense ou la sécurité nationales, il permitting the indictment or information confirme celui-ci par ordonnance. to proceed only in respect of a lesser or Caractère définitif de la décision included offence; (11) La décision du juge rendue au titre (b) an order effecting a stay of the de l’un des paragraphes (8) à (10) est proceedings; and définitive et, par dérogation à toute autre (c) an order finding against any party on loi fédérale, non susceptible d’appel ni de any issue relating to information the révision judiciaire. disclosure of which is prohibited. Publication 2001, c. 41, s. 43. (12) Dès que possible après la décision du juge, le procureur général du Canada Fiat fait publier dans la Gazette du Canada, 38.15 (1) If sensitive information or avec mention du certificat publié potentially injurious information may be antérieurement : disclosed in connection with a a) le certificat modifié au titre du prosecution that is not instituted by the paragraphe (8); Attorney General of Canada or on his or b) un avis de la révocation d’un certificat her behalf, the Attorney General of au titre du paragraphe (9). Canada may issue a fiat and serve the fiat 2001, ch. 41, art. 43; on the prosecutor. 2004, ch. 12, art. 19(A). Effect of fiat Protection du droit à un procès équitable (2) When a fiat is served on a prosecutor, 38.14 (1) La personne qui préside une the fiat establishes the exclusive authority instance criminelle peut rendre of the Attorney General of Canada with l’ordonnance qu’elle estime indiquée en respect to the conduct of the prosecution l’espèce en vue de protéger le droit de described in the fiat or any related l’accusé à un pr ocès équitable, pourvu process. que telle ordonnance soit conforme à une Fiat filed in court ordonnance rendue en application de l’un (3) If a prosecution described in the fiat or des paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3) any related process is conducted by or on relativement à cet te instance, a u ne behalf of the Attorney General of Canada, décision en appel ou dé coulant de the fiat or a copy of the fiat shall be filed l’examen ou au certificat délivré au titre with the court in which the prosecution or de l’article 38.13. process is conducted. Ordonnances éventuelles 95
Fiat constitutes conclusive proof (2) L’ordonnance rendue au titre du (4) The fiat or a copy of the fiat paragraphe (1) peut notamment : (a) is conclusive proof that the a) annuler un chef d’accusation d’un acte prosecution described in the fiat or any d’accusation ou d’ une dénonciation, ou related process may be conducted by or autoriser l’instruction d’un chef on behalf of the Attorney General of d’accusation ou d’une dénonciation pour Canada; and une infraction moins grave ou une (b) is admissible in evidence without infraction incluse; proof of the signature or official character b) ordonner l’arrêt des procédures; of the Attorney General of Canada. c) être rendue à l’encontre de toute partie Military proceedings sur toute question liée aux (5) This section does not apply to a renseignements dont la divulgation est proceeding under Part III of the National interdite. Defence Act. 2001, ch. 41, art. 43. 2001, c. 41, s. 43. Fiat du procureur général du Canada Regulations 38.15 (1) Dans le cas où des 38.16 The Governor in Council may renseignements sensibles ou de s make any regulations that the Governor in renseignements potentiellement Council considers necessary to carry into préjudiciables peuvent être divulgués effect the purposes and provisions of dans le cadre d’une poursuite qui n’est sections 38 t o 38.15, i ncluding pas engagée par le procureur général du regulations respecting the notices, Canada ou pou r son compte, il peut certificates and the fiat. délivrer un fiat et le faire signifier au 2001, c. 41, s. 43. poursuivant. Effet du fiat (2) Le fiat établit la compétence exclusive du pr ocureur général du Canada à l’égard de la poursuite qui y est mentionnée et des procédures qui y sont liées. Dépôt auprès du juge ou du tribunal (3) L’original ou un double du f iat est déposé devant le tribunal saisi de la poursuite — ou d’une autre procédure liée à cel le-ci — engagée par le procureur général du Canada ou pour son compte. Preuve (4) Le fiat ou le double de celui-ci : a) est une preuve concluante que le procureur général du Canada ou s on délégué a compétence pour mener la poursuite qui y est mentionnée ou l es procédures qui y sont liées; b) est admissible en preuve sans qu’il soit 96
nécessaire de prouver la signature ou la qualité officielle du procureur général du Canada. Instances militaires (5) Le présent article ne s’applique pas aux instances engagées sous le régime de la partie III de la Loi sur la défense nationale. 2001, ch. 41, art. 43. Règlements 38.16 Le gouverneur en conseil peut, par règlement, prendre les mesures qu’il estime nécessaires à l ’application des articles 38 à 38.15, not amment régir les avis, certificats et fiat. 2001, ch. 41, art. 43.
Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7
JUDGMENTS OF FEDERAL COURT JUGEMENTS DE LA COUR D’APPEL OF APPEAL FÉDÉRALE Powers of Federal Court of Appeal Pouvoirs de la Cour d’appel fédérale 52. The Federal Court of Appeal may 52. La Cour d’appel fédérale peut : (a) quash proceedings in cases brought a) arrêter les procédures dans les causes before it in which it has no jurisdiction or qui ne sont pas de son ressort ou whenever those proceedings are not taken entachées de mauvaise foi; in good faith; b) dans le cas d’un appel d’une décision (b) in the case of an appeal from the de la Cour fédérale : Federal Court, (i) soit rejeter l’appel ou rendre le (i) dismiss the appeal or give the jugement que la Cour fédérale aurait dû judgment and award the process or other rendre et prendre toutes mesures proceedings that the Federal Court should d’exécution ou autres que celle-ci aurait have given or awarded, dû prendre, (ii) in its discretion, order a new trial if (ii) soit, à son appréciation, ordonner un the ends of justice seem to require it, or nouveau procès, si l’intérêt de la justice (iii) make a declaration as to the paraît l’exiger, conclusions that the Federal Court should (iii) soit énoncer, dans une déclaration, have reached on the issues decided by it les conclusions auxquelles la Cour and refer the matter back for a fédérale aurait dû arriver sur les points continuance of the trial on the issues that qu’elle a tranchés et lui renvoyer l’affaire remain to be determined in light of that pour poursuite de l’instruction, à la declaration; and lumière de cette déclaration, sur les (c) in the case of an appeal other than an points en suspens; appeal from the Federal Court, c) dans les autres cas d’appel : (i) dismiss the appeal or give the decision (i) soit rejeter l’appel ou rendre la 97
that should have been given, or décision qui aurait dû être rendue, (ii) in its discretion, refer the matter back (ii) soit, à son appréciation, renvoyer for determination in accordance with l’affaire pour jugement conformément such directions as it considers to be aux instructions qu’elle estime appropriate. appropriées. (d) [Repealed, 1990, c. 8, s. 17] d) [Abrogé, 1990, ch. 8, art. 17] R.S., 1985, c. F-7, s. 52; L.R. (1985), ch. F-7, art. 52; 1990, c. 8, s. 17; 1990, ch. 8, art. 17; 2002, c. 8, s. 50. 2002, ch. 8, art. 50.
98
APPENDIX “B” – CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
1. Do ss. 83(1)(c) and (d) of the 1. Les alinéas 83(1)(c) et (d) de la Loi sur Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, l'immigration et la protection des S.C. 2001, c . 27, i nfringe s. 7 of the refugies, L.C. 2001, c h. 27, vi olent-ils Canadian Charter of Rights and l'art. 7 de la Charte canadienne des droits Freedoms? et libertés?
2. If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be 2. Dans l'affirmative, s'agit-il d'une demonstrably justified in a f ree and violation constituant une limite democratic society under s. 1 of the raisonnable, établie par une règle de droit Canadian Charter of Rights and et dont la justification peut se démontrer Freedoms? dans le cadre d'une société libre et démocratique conformément a l'article premier de la Charte canadienne des 3. D o ss. 77(2) and 83(1)(e) of the droits et libertés? Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c . 27, i nfringe s. 7 of the 3. Le paragraphe 77(2) et l'al. 83(1)e) de Canadian Charter of Rights and la Loi sur l'immigration et la protection Freedoms? des refugies, L.C. 2001, c h. 27, vi olent-ils 4. If so, is the infringement a reasonable l'art. 7 de la Charte canadienne des droits limit prescribed by law as can be et demonstrably justified in a free and libertés? democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and 4. Dans l'affirmative, s'agit-il d'une Freedoms? violation constituant une limite raisonnable, établie par une régie de droit et dont la justification peut se démontrer 5. D oes s. 83(1)(h) of the Immigration dans le cadre d'une société libre et and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. démocratique conformément a l'article 27, premier de la Charte canadienne des infringe s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of droits et libertés? Rights and Freedoms? 5. L'alinéa 83(1)h) de la Loi sur 6. If so, is the infringement a reasonable l'immigration et la protection des limit prescribed by law as can be refugies, L.C. 2001, ch. 27, viole-t-il l'art. demonstrably justified in a free and 7 de la Charte canadienne des droits et democratic society under s. 1 of the libertés? Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? 6. Dans l'affirmative, s'agit-il d'une violation constituant une limite raisonnable, établie par une règle de droit 7. D oes s. 83(1)(i) of the Immigration et dont la justification peut se démontrer 99
and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. dans le cadre d'une société libre et 27, infringe s. 7 of the Canadian Charter démocratique conformément a l’article of Rights and Freedoms? premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés? 8. If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be 7. L'alinéa 83(1)i) de la Loi sur demonstrably justified in a free and l'immigration et la protection des democratic society under s. 1 of the refugies, L.C. 2001, ch. 27, viole-t-il l'art. Canadian Charter of Rights and 7 de la Charte canadienne des droits et Freedoms? libertés?
8. Dans l'affirmative, s'agit-il d'une 9. D o ss. 85.4(2) and 85.5(b) of the violation constituant une limite Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, raisonnable, établie par une règle de droit S.C. 2001, c. 27, i nfringe s.7 of the et dont la justification peut se démontrer Canadian Charter of Rights and dans le cadre d'une société libre et Freedoms? démocratique conformément a l'article premier de la Charte canadienne des 10. I f so, is the infringement a droits et libertés? reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and 9. Le paragraphe 85.4(2) et l'al. 85.5(b) democratic society under s. 1 of the de la Loi sur l'immigration et la Canadian Charter of Rights and protection des refugies, L.C. 2001, c h. Freedoms? 27, violent-ils l'art. 7 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés?
10. D ans l'affirmative, s'agit-il d'une violation constituant une limite raisonnable, établie par une règle de droit et dont la justification peut se démontrer dans le cadre d 'une société libre et démocratique conformément a l'article premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés?