Harkat, Re, (2010) 380 F.T.R. 163 (FC)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Judge: Noël, J.
• Citation: (2010), 380 F.T.R. 163 (FC),2010 FC 1242
• Date: 09 December 2010

Harkat, Re (2010), 380 F.T.R. 163 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] F.T.R. TBEd. DE.015

In The Matter Of a certificate signed pursuant to subsection 77(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended (the "Act")

In The Matter Of the referral of that certificate to the Federal Court of Canada pursuant to subsection 77(1) of the Act;

And In The Matter Of Mohammed Harkat

(DES-5-08; 2010 FC 1242)

Indexed As: Harkat, Re

Federal Court

Noël, J.

December 9, 2010.

Summary:

In 2002, Harkat was detained under a ministerial security certificate issued under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) as a person inadmissible to Canada on grounds of national security. Numerous security certificate proceedings ensued. In 2006 he was released from detention on stringent conditions, which were substantially modified over time in favour of Harkat. Another security certificate was issued in 2008 when a new security certificate regime was implemented following the Supreme Court of Canada's rulings in Re Charkaoui. Harkat's case was referred to the court to determine the reasonableness of the 2008 certificate. Harkat brought a motion challenging the constitutionality of a number of provisions of the IRPA relating to the reasonableness review scheme (ss. 77(2) (filing of evidence and summary), 83(1)(c) to (e), 83(1)(i) (protection of information), s. 85.4(2) and 85.5(b) (restrictions on communications involving special advocates)). Harkat claimed that those provisions violated s. 7 of the Charter in that they did not provide for fair trial standards, failed to grant to the named person the right to know and answer the case made against him and made it impossible for the Court to render a sufficiently informed decision on the basis of the facts and the law.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion. The impugned provisions were constitutional.

Aliens - Topic 1561.3

Exclusion and expulsion - Power to detain and deport - Minister's certificate - Special advocates - The ministerial security certificate regime under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) provided a person named in the certificate with a hearing to determine the reasonableness of the certificate - That regime also protected information which, if disclosed, would harm Canada's national security or the safety of any person - While national security considerations might preclude the disclosure of information, the procedure set out in the IRPA required the provision of summaries throughout the proceeding to the named person to ensure that he was reasonably informed of the case made by the Ministers against him - To compensate for the absence of a named person and his counsel during in camera proceedings special advocates were appointed to protect the person's interests - The Federal Court discussed the IRPA special advocate system compared to other systems - See paragraphs 74 to 80.

Aliens - Topic 1561.3

Exclusion and expulsion - Power to detain and deport - Minister's certificate - Special advocates - [See Civil Rights - Topic 660.2 ].

Aliens - Topic 1564

Exclusion and expulsion - Power to detain and deport - Minister's certificate - Review - Disclosure - The Federal Court provided an overview of the national security information disclosure process and the use of special advocates in the context of the review of the reasonableness of a ministerial security certificate issued under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act - See paragraphs 49 to 74.

Aliens - Topic 1564

Exclusion and expulsion - Power to detain and deport - Minister's certificate - Review - Disclosure - The Federal Court discussed what constituted national security "information" within the context of the security certificate provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act - See paragraphs 99 to 105.

Aliens - Topic 1564

Exclusion and expulsion - Power to detain and deport - Minister's certificate - Review - Disclosure - [See Civil Rights - Topic 660.2 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 660.2

Liberty - Limitations on - Immigration (incl. security certificate procedure) - Harkat was the subject of a ministerial security certificate on the grounds of national security issued under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) - Harkat claimed that a number of provisions of the IRPA (new amendments) relating to the security certificate reasonableness review scheme were contrary to s. 7 of the Charter (s. 77(2) (filing of evidence and summary), ss. 83(1)(c) to (e) and 83(1)(i) (restrictions on disclosure) and ss. 85.4(2) and 85.5(b) (restrictions on communications involving special advocates, including preauthorization requirements)) - The Federal Court found that Harkat's liberty rights had been deprived by the legislation, and eventually, depending on future decisions, his rights to security of the person might be as well; however, there was no breach of the requirements of fundamental justice - The provisions were constitutional - The court opined that, in any event, the provisions dealing with the disclosure process of national security information and the communication procedures for special advocates were saved by s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 106 to 235.

Civil Rights - Topic 1200

Security of the person - General - The Federal Court discussed s. 7 of the Charter and the principles of fundamental justice - The court stated, inter alia, that "It is a constitutional requirement of s. 7 of the Charter that the right to life, liberty and security of the person must not be interfered with by any laws except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. As is suggested by the language of s. 7, a two-step analysis must be undertaken. First, it must be verified if there is an infringement to 'life, liberty and security of the person'. Second, the alleged infringement must not be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice ..." - See paragraph 81.

Civil Rights - Topic 1325

Security of the person - Immigration - Deportation, removal or exclusion (incl. security certificate procedure) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 660.2 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3105

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - General principles and definitions - Minimal procedural protection - What constitutes (i.e., requirements of s. 7 of the Charter) - The Federal Court set out the requirements of the principles of justice under s. 7 of the Charter - See paragraph 83.

Civil Rights - Topic 3193

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Administrative and noncriminal proceedings - Procedure not contrary to fundamental justice - [See Civil Rights - Topic 660.2 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 660.2 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular words and phrases - Principles of fundamental justice - The Federal Court discussed s. 7 of the Charter and the principles of fundamental justice - The court stated, inter alia, that "The principles of fundamental justice 'necessarily reflect a balancing of societal and individual interests' ... These principles extend beyond the scope of criminal law and encompass administrative proceedings and state action susceptible to have an impact on the rights s. 7 aims to protect ... Furthermore, there is sufficient causation between a deprivation of s. 7 rights and the Canadian government's participation, the guarantee of fundamental justice applies to deprivations effected by actors other than the Canadian government ..." - See paragraph 82.

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular words and phrases - Principles of fundamental justice - The Federal Court stated that "The Supreme Court of Canada has determined three criteria that must be met for a legal principle to be a principle of fundamental justice. It must first be a legal principle that provides meaningful content for the section 7 guarantee, therefore avoiding the inclusion of policy questions. Secondly, there must be significant social consensus that the principle is vital or fundamental to our societal notion of justice. Lastly, it must be a principle that can be identified with precision and applied to situations in a manner that yields predictable results ..." - See paragraph 84 - The court thereafter referred to case law on what were the basic principles of fundamental justice - See paragraph 85.

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular words and phrases - Principles of fundamental justice - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1200 and Civil Rights - Topic 3105 ].

Cases Noticed:

Charkaoui, Re (2007), 358 N.R. 1; 2007 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 6].

Charkaoui, Re (2008), 376 N.R. 154; 2008 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 7].

Almrei, Re (2009), 355 F.T.R. 222; 2009 FC 1263, refd to. [para. 42].

Mahjoub, Re (2010), 373 F.T.R. 36; 2010 FC 787, refd to. [para. 58].

Almrei, Re (2008), 331 F.T.R. 301; 2008 FC 1216, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Malik (R.S.) et al., [2005] B.C.T.C. 350; 2005 BCSC 350, refd to. [para. 74].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar et al. (2007), 316 F.T.R. 279; 2007 FC 766, refd to. [para. 78].

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 82].

New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. J.G. and D.V., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46; 244 N.R. 276; 216 N.B.R.(2d) 25; 552 A.P.R. 25, refd to. [para. 82].

Gosselin v. Quebec (Procureur général) (2002), 298 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 84, refd to. [para. 82].

Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002), 281 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Rodgers (D.) - see R. v. Jackpine (R.).

R. v. Jackpine (R.) (2006), 347 N.R. 201; 210 O.A.C. 200; 2006 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 83].

Idziak v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 631; 144 N.R. 327; 59 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 83].

Mount Sinai Hospital Center et al. v. Quebec (Minister of Health and Social Services) (2001), 271 N.R. 104; 2001 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al. (2003), 314 N.R. 1; 191 B.C.A.C. 1; 314 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 74, refd to. [para. 83].

Dehghani v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 1053; 150 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. La (H.K.) et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 680; 213 N.R. 1; 200 A.R. 81; 146 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 83].

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 315 N.R. 201; 183 O.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 84].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 85].

United States of America et al. v. Ferras (2006), 351 N.R. 1; 214 O.A.C. 326; 2006 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society et al. (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91, refd to. [para. 85].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 93].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Khawaja (2007), 312 F.T.R. 217; 2007 FC 490, refd to. [para. 100].

Ruby v. Canada (Solicitor General) - see Ruby v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al.

Ruby v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al. (2002), 295 N.R. 353; 2002 SCC 75, refd to. [para. 101].

Medovarski v. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration) (2005), 339 N.R. 1; 2005 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 110].

Chiarelli v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711; 135 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 115].

Thomson v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 385; 133 N.R. 345, refd to. [para. 125].

Miller v. Canada (Solicitor General) et al. (2006), 297 F.T.R. 203; 2006 FC 912, refd to. [para. 141].

Jaballah, Re (2009), 340 F.T.R. 43; 2009 FC 279, refd to. [para. 144].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 177].

R. v. McClure (D.E.) (2001), 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 179].

Jaballah, Re (2010), 364 F.T.R. 72; 2010 FC 79, refd to. [para. 190].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 209].

Named Person v. Vancouver Sun - see Vancouver Sun et al. v. Canada (Attorney General).

Vancouver Sun et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2007), 368 N.R. 112; 368 B.C.A.C. 1; 409 W.A.C. 1; 2007 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 216].

Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. Newfoundland Association of Public Employees (2004), 326 N.R. 25; 242 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 113; 719 A.P.R. 113; 2004 SCC 66, refd to. [para. 222].

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 231].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 231].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1, sect. 7 [para. 3].

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, sect. 3(1)(h) [para. 122]; sect. 3(1)(i) [para. 121]; sect. 77(2), sect. 78, sect. 83(1)(c), sect. 83(1)(d), sect. 83(1)(e), sect. 83(1)(h), sect. 83(1)(i), sect. 85.4(2), sect. 85.5(b) [para. 4].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Internal Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abou-Elmaati and Muayyed Nureddin, Ruling on terms of reference and procedure (Iacobucci Internal Inquiry) (2007), para. 58 [para. 220].

Iacobucci Internal Inquiry - see Canada, Internal Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abou-Elmaati and Muayyed Nureddin, Ruling on terms of reference and procedure.

Counsel:

None disclosed.

Solicitors of Record:

None disclosed.

This matter was heard by Noël, J., of the Federal Court who delivered the following reasons for order on December 9, 2010.