Kamel v. Canada (Attorney General), 2006 FC 676

• Judge: Harrington, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 08, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2006 FC 676;(2006), 303 F.T.R. 17 (FC)

Kamel v. Can. (A.G.) (2006), 303 F.T.R. 17 (FC)

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: [2006] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.023

Fateh Kamel (demandeur) v. Le Procureur Général du Canada (défendeur)

(T-100-06; 2006 CF 676; 2006 FC 676)

Indexed As: Kamel v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Harrington, J.

June 1, 2006.

Summary:

Passport Canada refused to issue Kamel a passport based on national security concerns. Kamel applied for judicial review. Pursuant to Federal Court Rule 317, Kamel requested material in Passport Canada's possession. Passport Canada produced a set of documents. Kamel took the position that all the material had not been disclosed and applied for the production of additional material.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court, in a decision reported at [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 291, dismissed the application. Kamel appealed.

The Federal Court allowed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 608

The hearing and decision - Disclosure by tribunal - To parties of material used or relied upon by the tribunal in making in its decision - Passport Canada refused to issue Kamel a passport based on national security concerns - Kamel sought judicial review - Pursuant to Federal Court Rule 317, Kamel requested material in Passport Canada's possession - Passport Canada produced documents - Kamel took the position all the material had not been disclosed and applied for additional production - The Federal Court ordered Passport Canada to produce the documents sought - Passport Canada was entitled to challenge the request for production on the basis that it lacked relevance, was not before the decision maker, or for any other reason - This did not however entitle it to act as though the documents did not exist - Passport Canada failed to inform Kamel and the court, in writing, of the reasons for its objection as required by rule 318(2) - Passport Canada was not required to produce two letters from Passport Canada that Kamel already had in his possession - However, the letters referred to documents that were clearly relevant and had been considered by the decision maker - Decision makers who had concerns regarding extrinsic evidence had to advise the applicant of their concerns - The principle of natural justice applied - The documents were in the possession of the decision maker, they were part of the record and had to be produced.

Administrative Law - Topic 2617

Natural justice - Evidence and proof - Disclosure - [See Administrative Law - Topic 608 ].

Administrative law - Topic 3213

Judicial review - General - Material required to be produced on review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 608 ].

Courts - Topic 4076

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Practice - Production of documents - [See Administrative Law - Topic 608 ].

Cases Noticed:

Merck & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc., [2004] 2 F.C.R. 459; 315 N.R. 175; 2003 FCA 488, refd to. [para. 7].

Tremblay v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] F.T.R. Uned. 251; 2005 FC 339, refd to. [para. 12].

Association des Crabiers Acadiens et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 122; 2006 FC 222, refd to. [para. 12].

Cooke v. Correctional Services of Canada (2005), 274 F.T.R. 44; 2005 FC 712, refd to. [para. 12].

Haghighi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] 4 F.C. 407; 257 N.R. 139 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Ali (M.) v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 151 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 13].

Mazumder v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2005), 272 F.T.R. 79; 2005 FC 444, refd to. [para. 13].

Alwan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 392; 2006 FC 665, refd to. [para. 13].

Sogi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 1 F.C.R. 171; 322 N.R. 2; 2004 FCA 212, refd to. [para. 14].

Counsel:

Johanne Doyon, for the applicant;

Nathalie Benoit, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Doyon and Associés, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicant;

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Montreal, Quebec, on May 8, 2006, by Harrington, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for order on June 1, 2006.