Ahani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 2

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 22, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2002 SCC 2;(2002), 280 N.R. 201 (SCC);[2002] SCJ No 4 (QL);208 DLR (4th) 57;[2002] 1 SCR 72;280 NR 201;90 CRR (2d) 47

Ahani v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2002), 280 N.R. 201 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2002] N.R. TBEd. JA.011

Mansour Ahani (appellant) v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Attorney General of Canada (respondents)

(27792; 2002 SCC 2)

Indexed As: Ahani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

January 11, 2002.

Summary:

Ahani, a citizen of Iran, was granted refu­gee status. The Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Employment and Immi­gration subsequently issued a certificate under s. 40.1(1) of the Immigration Act stating their opinion that Ahani was a mem­ber of an inadmissible class specified in the anti-terrorism provisions in ss. 19(1)(e)(iii), 19(1)(e)(iv)(C), 19(1)(f)(ii), 19(1)(f)(iii)(B) and 19(1)(g) of the Act. The certificate was issued on the basis of a Canadian Security Intelligence Service report which referred to Ahani's suspected involvement as an assassin with the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security. Ahani challenged the constitutional validity of s. 40.1 of the Act.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported at [1995] 3 F.C. 669; 100 F.T.R. 261, found s. 40.1 to be valid. The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 201 N.R. 233, affirmed the decision.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported at 146 F.T.R. 223, determined that the s. 40.1 certificate was reasonable.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigra­tion issued an opinion under s. 53(1)(b) of the Immigration Act expressing the view that Ahani posed a danger to the security of Canada. That finding enabled the Minister to return ("refoule") Ahani to Iran, the country from which he sought refuge. Ahani applied for judicial review of the Minister's decision, raising, inter alia, various constitutional questions relating to s. 53(1)(b). He also commenced an action in which he raised the same constitutional issues.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported at 170 F.T.R. 153, ordered that the court's decision in Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) be adopted to the extent that it decided the same constitutional ques­tions. The Suresh case is reported at 173 F.T.R. 1.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported at [1999] F.T.R. Uned. 445, dismissed Ahani's judicial review application. Ahani appealed. He also appealed from a decision which dismissed his action.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 252 N.R. 83, dismissed the appeals. There was no basis to set aside the Minister's decision that Ahani constituted a danger to the public. Ahani appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope or stan­dard of review - [See first and second Aliens - Topic 1645 ].

Aliens - Topic 1645

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Deportation - Grounds for - Danger to the public - The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration issued an opinion under s. 53(1)(b) of the Immigration Act that Ahani, a Convention refugee, posed a danger to the security of Canada - Ahani's application for judicial review was dis­missed - Ahani appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that it had to review two decisions of the Minister: (1) whether Ahani constituted a danger to the security of Canada; and (2) whether he faced a substantial risk of torture on depor­tation - The court stated that the standard of review with respect to the first decision was whether the decision was patently unreasonable in the sense that it was made arbitrarily or in bad faith, could not be supported on the evidence, or did not take into account the appropriate factors - See paragraph 15.

Aliens - Topic 1645

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Deportation - Grounds for - Danger to the public - The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration issued an opinion under s. 53(1)(b) of the Immigration Act that Ahani, a Convention refugee, posed a danger to the security of Canada - Ahani's application for judicial was dismissed - Ahani appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that it had to review two decisions of the Minister: (1) whether Ahani constituted a danger to the security of Canada; and (2) whether he faced a substantial risk of torture on deportation - With respect to the second question, the court stated that it could intervene only if the Minister's decision was not supported on the evidence, or failed to consider the appropriate factors - The court stated that the inquiry into whether Ahani faced a substantial risk of torture on deportation involved consideration of the human rights record of the home state and other such issues, which were largely outside the realm of expertise of reviewing courts and pos­sessed a negligible legal dimension - Consider­able deference was therefore required - See paragraph 17.

Aliens - Topic 1645

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Deportation - Grounds for - Danger to the public - Ahani, a citizen of Iran, was granted refugee status - A security certifi­cate was issued under s. 40.1(1) of the Immigration Act stating that Ahani was a member of an inadmissible class specified in the anti-terrorism provisions in ss. 19(1)(e)(iii), 19(1)(e)(iv)(C), 19(1)(f)(ii), 19(1)(f)(iii)(B) and 19(1)(g) - The Minister subsequently issued an opinion under s. 53(1)(b) of the Act expressing the view that Ahani posed a danger to the security of Canada - The Minister determined that there was only a minimal risk of harm if Ahani were returned to Iran - Ahani applied for judi­cial review of the Minis­ter's decision - The application was dis­missed - Ahani appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada found no basis to inter­fere with the Minis­ter's deci­sion - See paragraphs 15 to 22.

Aliens - Topic 1645

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Deportation - Grounds for - Danger to the public - Ahani, a citizen of Iran, was granted refugee status - The Minister is­sued an opinion under s. 53(1)(b) of the Immigration Act expressing the view that Ahani posed a danger to the security of Canada - The Minister determined that there was only a minimal risk of harm if Ahani were returned to Iran - Ahani ap­plied for judicial review of the Minis­ter's decision - The application was dis­missed - Ahani appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal - With respect to whether Ahani was fairly dealt with, the court stated that "[w]e are satisfied that Ahani was fully informed of the Minister's case against him and given a full opportun­ity to respond. Insofar as the procedures followed may not have precisely complied with those we suggest in Suresh [v. Canada (Minister of Citizen­ship and Immi­gration)], we are satisfied that this did not prejudice him. We con­clude that the pro­cess accorded to Ahani was consistent with the principles of fun­damental justice, and would reject this ground of appeal" - See paragraph 26.

Aliens - Topic 1789

Exclusion and expulsion - Deportation of persons in Canada - Refugees - [See third Aliens - Topic 1645 ].

Cases Noticed:

Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002), 281 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 2].

Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 173 F.T.R. 1; 65 C.R.R.(2d) 344 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citi­zenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, sect. 53(1) [para. 13].

Counsel:

Barbara Jackman and Ronald Poulton, for the appellant;

Urszula Kaczmarczyk and Donald A. MacIntosh, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Jackman, Waldman & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

The Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on May 22, 2001, before McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court in both official languages on January 11, 2002.