Khadr v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al., (2006) 290 F.T.R. 313 (FC)

• Judge: von Finckenstein, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 10, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2006), 290 F.T.R. 313 (FC);2006 FC 509

Khadr v. Can. (2006), 290 F.T.R. 313 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.020

Omar Ahmed Khadr (applicant) v. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, The Minister of Foreign Affairs, The Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and The Commissioner of The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (respondents)

(T-3-06; 2006 FC 509)

Indexed As: Khadr v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al.

Federal Court

von Finckenstein, J.

April 25, 2006.

Summary:

Khadr, a Canadian citizen, was a prisoner at a U.S. military detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He faced charges of conspiracy, murder by an unprivileged belligerent, attempted murder by an unprivileged belligerent, and aiding the enemy. Khadr's counsel wrote to the respondents demanding copies of all materials in the possession of all departments of the Crown in Right of Canada which might be relevant to the charges against Khadr. No response was received. Khadr applied for judicial review of the respondents' decision not to respond to the demand for disclosure and he sought an order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide full and complete disclosure. Khadr argued that under s. 7 of the Charter he had a constitutional right to disclosure of all material in the respondents' possession that was relevant to the charges against him.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 3128

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right of accused to obtain information or evidence - Khadr, a Canadian citizen, was a prisoner at a U.S. military detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - He faced charges of conspiracy, murder by an unprivileged belligerent, attempted murder by an unprivileged belligerent, and aiding the enemy - Khadr's counsel demanded copies of all materials in the possession of all departments of the Crown in Right of Canada which might be relevant to the charges against Khadr - Khadr applied for judicial review of the respondents' decision not to respond to the demand for disclosure - Khadr argued that under s. 7 of the Charter he had a constitutional right to disclosure of all material in the respondents' possession that was relevant to the charges against him - He further argued that by virtue of Purdy v. Canada (A.G.) (B.C.C.A.), s. 7 applied to prosecutions in foreign jurisdictions where Canadian authorities were in possession of materials that could be used by the applicant to defend himself against the foreign charges - The Federal Court dismissed the application - Purdy stood for the exceptional case where disclosure could be justified if peculiar factual circumstances arose - This case was different - There was no analogy to Purdy and no basis for applying s. 7 of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 8306

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application of - Territorial limits - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3128 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 8].

Purdy v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] B.C.T.C. 725; 226 D.L.R.(4th) 761 (S.C.), affd. (2003), 188 B.C.A.C. 195; 308 W.A.C. 195; 230 D.L.R.(4th) 361; 2003 BCCA 447, consd. [para. 8].

R. v. Cook (D.R.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 597; 230 N.R. 83; 112 B.C.A.C. 1; 182 W.A.C. 1; 164 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 12].

Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3; 281 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 1, consd. [para. 13].

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. and Merck Frosst Canada Inc., [1994] 1 F.C. 742; 162 N.R. 177 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Statutes Noticed:

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

Counsel:

Nathan Whitling and Dennis Edney, for the applicant;

Doreen Mueller, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Parlee McLaws LLP, Edmonton, Alberta, for the applicant;

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

This application was heard on April 10, 2006, at Winnipeg, Manitoba, before von Finckenstein, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on April 25, 2006.