Sogi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2006) 291 F.T.R. 237 (FC)

• Judge: Blais, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 18, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2006), 291 F.T.R. 237 (FC);2006 FC 536

Sogi v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2006), 291 F.T.R. 237 (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. MY.036

Bachan Singh Sogi (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-4866-05; IMM-7355-05; 2006 CF 536; 2006 FC 536)

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

Federal Court

Blais, J.

April 28, 2006.

Summary:

Sogi, a citizen of India, was found to be inadmissible on security grounds. He had been in detention on the basis of secret reports, information and evidence, for over three and a half years (i.e, since 2002). Sogi applied for judicial review of rulings of the Immigration and Refugee Board. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration filed a motion for non-disclosure of security information in the course of the application for judicial review pursuant to s. 87 of the Immigration and Refugee Act (IRPA). Sogi filed a notice of a constitutional question to challenge ss. 78, 86 and 87 of the IRPA. The parties agreed that the constitutional issue would be dealt with separately from the other points in issue.

The Federal Court rejected Sogi's constitutional arguments.

Administrative Law - Topic 8868

Boards and tribunals - Members - Independence and impartiality - Sogi, a citizen of India, was found to be inadmissible on security grounds and had been in detention on the basis of secret reports, information and evidence, for over three and a half years - Sogi applied for judicial review of a ruling by the Immigration Division - The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration filed a motion for non-disclosure of security information in the course of the judicial review pursuant to s. 87 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) - In this context, Sogi challenged the constitutional validity of ss. 78, 86 and 87 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which dealt with protection of information - Sogi argued that board members lost their independence and impartiality because they only had one opinion in front of them, that of the Minister, during private ex parte hearings held pursuant to ss. 78, 86 and 87 of the IRPA - He also claimed that ss. 78, 86 and 87 infringed the rights guaranteed by the Charter in that they violated the principles of natural justice, by depriving him of the right to be informed of the other party's evidence, to cross-examine and to have a public hearing - The Federal Court rejected the constitutional arguments, holding that these matters had already been dealt with by the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal, one case involving Sogi himself - The court stated that this was merely a fresh attempt to have examined constitutional questions which had already been decided - See paragraphs 23 to 53.

Aliens - Topic 4073

Practice - Judicial review and appeals - Nondisclosure of confidential information - [See Administrative Law - Topic 8868 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3187

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Administrative and noncriminal proceedings - Right to independent and impartial tribunal - [See Administrative Law - Topic 8868 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3193

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Administrative and noncriminal proceedings - Procedure not contrary to fundamental justice - [See Administrative Law - Topic 8868 ].

Estoppel - Topic 394.2

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - In Charter cases - [See Administrative Law - Topic 8868 ].

Cases Noticed:

Charkaoui, Re, [2005] 2 F.C.R. 299; 328 N.R. 201; 2004 FCA 421, refd to. [para. 15].

Sogi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 1 F.C.R. 171; 322 N.R. 2; 2004 FCA 212, refd to. [para. 15].

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. et al., [2003] 1 F.C. 242; 291 N.R. 96 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec et autres, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 919; 205 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 25].

Mugesera et al. v. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 91; 335 N.R. 220, refd to. [para. 27].

Ahani v. Canada, [1995] 3 F.C. 669; 100 F.T.R. 261 (T.D.), affd. (1996), 201 N.R. 233 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1997), 223 N.R. 72 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Almrei v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al. (2005), 270 F.T.R. 1; 2005 FC 1645, refd to. [para. 30].

Harkat, Re (2005), 261 F.T.R. 52; 2005 FC 393, affd. (2005), 340 N.R. 286; 2005 FCA 285, refd to. [para. 30].

Almrei v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] 4 F.C.R. 330; 249 F.T.R. 53; 2004 FC 420, affd. [2005] 3 F.C.R. 142; 330 N.R. 73; 2005 FCA 54, refd to. [para. 30].

Charkaoui, Re, [2004] 3 F.C.R. 32; 253 F.T.R. 22; 2003 FC 1419, refd to. [para. 31].

Application Under Section 83.28 of the Criminal Code, Re, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 248; 322 N.R. 205; 199 B.C.A.C. 45; 326 W.A.C. 45; 2004 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 33].

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

Ruby v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al., [2002] 4 S.C.R. 3; 295 N.R. 353; 2002 SCC 75, refd to. [para. 33].

Chiarelli v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711; 135 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 38].

Sogi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] 2 F.C.R. 427; 242 F.T.R. 266, refd to. [para. 41].

Sogi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2004), 337 N.R. 395 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

Harkat, Re (2004), 259 F.T.R. 98; 2004 FC 1717, refd to. [para. 44].

Sogi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2003), 242 F.T.R. 266; 2003 FC 1429, refd to. [para. 44].

Statutes Noticed:

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, sect. 78 [para. 20]; sect. 86 [para. 21]; sect. 87 [para. 22].

Counsel:

Johanne Doyon, for the applicant;

François Joyal and Ian Demers, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Doyon & Associés, Montréal (Québec), for the applicant;

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

This application was heard at Montreal, Quebec, on April 18, 2006, before Blais, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons on April 28, 2006.