KELLY HARTLE, WARDEN of the EDMONTON INSTITUTION, and the ATTORNEY GENERAL of CANADA and HER MAJESTY the QUEEN in RIGHT of ALBERTA
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Court File No. 36081 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE ALBERTA COURT OF APPEAL) BETWEEN: KELLY HARTLE, WARDEN OF THE EDMONTON INSTITUTION, and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA Appellants (Respondents) - and - OMAR AHMED KHADR Respondent (Appellant) FACTUM OF THE APPELLANTS, KELLY HARTLE, WARDEN OF THE EDMONTON INSTITUTION, and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Deputy Attorney General of Canada Deputy Attorney General of Canada Department of Justice Canada Department of Justice Canada Centennial House 50 O'Connor Street Suite 500, Room 557 301-310 Broadway Ottawa, Ontario Winnipeg, MB, R3C 0S6 K1A 0H8 Per: Sharlene Telles-Langdon / Per: Christopher Rupar Michael Taylor / Cameron Regehr Tel: 613- 670-6290 Telephone: 204-295-1026 Fax: 613-954-1920 Fax: 204-984-8495 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for the Appellants, Agent for the Appellants, Kelly Hartle, Warden of the Edmonton Kelly Hartle, Warden of the Edmonton Institution, and the Attorney General of Institution, and the Attorney General of Canada Canada TO: Nathan Whitling and Dennis Edney Marie-France Major Beresh Aloneissi O’Neill O’Keeffe Millsap Supreme Advocacy LLP 300 MacLean Block 340 Gilmour Street, Suite 100 10110 – 107 Street Ottawa, Ontario Edmonton, Alberta T5J 1J4 K2P 0R3 Attention: Nathan Whitling Phone: (613) 695-8855 Phone: 780-421-4766 Fax: (613) 695-8580 Fax: 780-429-0346 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent, Omar Ottawa Agent for the Respondent, Ahmed Khadr Omar Ahmed Khadr Attorney General of Alberta Michael Sobkin Alberta Justice, Civil Law Branch Barrister & Solicitor 9th Floor, Peace Hills Trust Tower 331 Somerset Street West 10011 109th Street Ottawa, Ontario Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3S8 K2P 0J8 Per: Doreen Mueller Phone: 780-644-5785 Phone: 613-282-1712 Cell: 780-237-0845 Fax: 613-288-2896 Fax: 780-427-1230 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Appellant Her Majesty Ottawa Agent for the Appellant Her the Queen in Right of Alberta Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta i TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I – OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................ 1 A. Background Facts ............................................................................................... 2 B. Statutory Framework .......................................................................................... 4 i. The general scheme of the ITOA ................................................................. 4 ii. The statutory scheme for young persons in the ITOA ................................. 6 C. The Respondent’s Transfer under the ITOA ....................................................... 7 D. The Decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta ................................. 10 E. The Decision of the Court of Appeal of Alberta .............................................. 11 PART II – QUESTIONS IN ISSUE ............................................................................... 13 PART III - ARGUMENT ............................................................................................... 14 A. Reasonableness Standard of Review Applies ................................................... 14 i. Applying the standard of review analysis to habeas corpus applications . 14 ii. The CSC’s interpretation and application of the ITOA to be reviewed on a standard of reasonableness ........................................................................ 15 B. Principles of Statutory Interpretation Support the CSC’s Interpretation .......... 18 C. The ITOA and the Treaties it Implements Provide a Beneficial Exception to the Doctrine of State Sovereignty ................................................................................... 20 D. The CSC’s Interpretation Best Accords with the Domestic Purpose of the ITOA and Canada’s Institutional Framework for Corrections ............................................ 23 E. The CSC’s Interpretation and Application of ss. 18 and 20 of the ITOA is Reasonable and Lawful ............................................................................................. 24 F. The Scheme of the ITOA Requires a Sentence Tied to Each Conviction ......... 26 i. Dual criminality determination provides basis for application of ITOA ... 26 ii. Continued enforcement, subject to adaptation, requires a discrete sentence for each offence ......................................................................................... 26 iii. Administering the transfer of a “young person” requires a sentence tied to each offence ............................................................................................... 28 G. The CSC Reasonably Interpreted the Respondent’s Sentence for the Purposes of Applying the ITOA .................................................................................................... 31 H. The Court of Appeal’s Interpretation of s. 20 of the ITOA Undermines ss 17 to 19 of the ITOA and Misconstrues the Foreign Sentence ................................................ 34 I. The Court of Appeal’s Interpretation of s. 20 Results in Gaps and Internal Inconsistencies........................................................................................................... 37 J. Additional Error of Law in Court of Appeal’s Decision .................................. 39 PART IV – SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING COSTS ................................................ 40 ii PART V - ORDER SOUGHT ........................................................................................ 40 PART VI - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................... 41 PART VII – LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS DIRECTLY IN ISSUE ....................... 45 A. International Transfer of Offenders Act, SC 2004, c 21, s. 18 ......................... 45 B. International Transfer of Offenders Act, SC 2004, c 21, s. 19 ......................... 45 C. International Transfer of Offenders Act, SC 2004, c 21, s. 20 ......................... 46 - 1 - PART I – OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. The respondent received a single eight-year sentence after pleading guilty before a United States Military Commission to five serious offences committed while he was 15 years old. After serving the first year of his sentence, he applied under the International Transfer of Offenders Act (“ITOA”)1 to serve the remainder of his sentence in Canada. Upon international transfer to Canada, enforcement of a foreign sentence is to be continued in accordance with the laws of Canada.2 Based on the Correctional Service of Canada’s (“CSC”) interpretation of the ITOA and its expertise in matters of fact and policy, the CSC considered the single eight-year sentence to be applicable to each conviction and applied the relevant provisions of the ITOA accordingly. 2. In this appeal the Court must assess whether the CSC reasonably determined that: s. 18 of the ITOA deems the respondent’s single eight-year sentence to be an adult sentence on four of his five convictions; and that the respondent should consequently be detained in a federal penitentiary under s. 20(b)(iii) of the ITOA to serve the remainder of his sentence. 3. The ITOA must be interpreted in a manner that considers its larger international context and supports the attainment of its purpose. The enforcement provisions of the ITOA are premised on an understanding that each offence for which an offender is convicted carries its own sentence. Coherent operation of ss. 14 and 17 to 19 of the ITOA is only possible if a specific sentence can be attributed to each equivalent offence. Therefore, where an offender has received a single sentence for multiple convictions, a principled method of determining the sentence applicable to each offence is required to properly apply the ITOA. Failure to do so would create gaps and internal inconsistencies in the administration of the ITOA 4. The CSC reasonably interpreted and applied the ITOA. Its interpretation and application of the relevant provisions best accords with the scheme of the Act and with the intention of Parliament. It represents a pragmatic and principled approach that can be 1 International Transfer of Offenders Act, SC 2004, c 21 [ITOA]. 2 ITOA, s 13. - 2 - applied in all situations and provides certainty and predictability in the application of the ITOA for offenders, the transferring state, and the CSC. 5. The Court of Appeal of Alberta reviewed the CSC’s decision for correctness and granted the respondent’s appeal and habeas corpus application. The Court of Appeal’s interpretation of the ITOA undermines the operation of the post-transfer sentence enforcement provisions in relation to a single sentence for multiple offences. It applies an internally inconsistent logic and leaves gaps in their application. Accordingly, this Court should allow the appeal and restore the CSC’s decision. A. Background Facts 6. The respondent was detained by the U.S. military following a battlefield confrontation in Afghanistan in 2002, when he was 15 years old. He was charged with five offences under the U.S. Military Commissions Act of 2009,3 being: a) Charge I: Murder in Violation of the Law of War contrary to 10 USC § 950t; b) Charge II: Attempted Murder in Violation of the Law of War contrary to 10 USC § 950t(28); c) Charge III: Conspiracy contrary to 10 USC § 950t(29); d) Charge IV: Providing Material Support for Terrorism