Introduction
The Supreme Court of Canada made a significant ruling on the validity of processes for judging the proportionality of a security certificate in the case of Charkaoui v. Canada. The main concern of Charkaoui’s attorneys was that their client was imprisoned without having access to information on his links to the Bin Laden network, which was the cause for issuing a certificate. Apart from Charkaoui, there were two other appellants in this case with similar claims. Additionally, in this case, the Court reviewed detention under a certificate. This paper will analyze the issues, rules, and conclusions of the Charkaoui v. Canada court case.
The Main Issue of the Case
The main issue in the case Charkaoui v. Canada was that Adil Charkaoui, a permanent resident of Canada since 1995, was detained and imprisoned in 2003. Similar issues were described by the two other appellants, Hassan Almrei and Mohamed Harkat. The imprisonment of Charkaoui was a result of a security certificate granted by the Minister of Immigration and the Solicitor General of Canada (“Charkaoui v. Canada,” 2007). Syrian national Hassan Almrei arrived in Canada in 1999 and was given refugee status. He was jailed for around eight years before being released with conditions when his name appeared on a security certificate in 2001. Mohamed Harkat, a refugee claimant from Algeria, was held on a security certificate in 2002 and was eventually freed from custody with restrictions in 2006.
Both the appellants and their attorneys were not given access to the confidential evidence on which the certificate was based. Evidence summaries made available to the public by the Federal Court suggested a relationship with “the bin Laden network” (“Charkaoui v. Canada,” 2007). After appealing his incarceration three times, the appellants were finally freed in February 2005 after nearly two years in jail. Charkaoui was released on extremely stringent bail terms, and afterward, Charkaoui has not been indicted or put on trial.
In Charkaoui v. Canada, the attorneys alleged that the Canadian Charter’s sections 7, 9, and 10 on liberty and habeas corpus were breached by the security certificate process, which forbade the listed person from reviewing the documentation used to issue the certificate. Therefore, the main issue, in this case, was that a person for whom the certificate was issued could be incarcerated, but they had no access to the information supporting the legality of such a decision. However, the Court dismissed the appellants’ assertions that the imprisonment violated the rule of law, that the uneven treatment violated equality rights, and that the extension of detentions violated the right against indefinite detention (“Charkaoui v. Canada,” 2007). Articles 33 and 77 to 85 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act were found invalid as a remedy, and the Court suspended the decision for a year. It also declared that judicial confirmation of certificates and review of detention had no force or effect.
Court’s Rulings
The Court ruled that some of the plaintiff’s claims were justified and, therefore, made some changes to the certificate issuance process. Sections 7, 9, and 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are unreasonably violated by sections 33 and 77 to 85 of the IRPA, according to Chief Justice McLachlin, writing on behalf of a unanimous court (“Charkaoui v. Canada,” 2007). The certificate process was not minimally impairing, the Court Held in the Section 1 Analysis for Justification of the Violation. The Court referred to a clearing procedure in the UK that would assign particular attorneys to see the evidence on behalf of the accused. The Court further determined that section 84(2) of the IRPA was unconstitutional due to its 120-day embargo on any application for release, which denied foreign nationals a fast hearing (“Charkaoui v. Canada,” 2007). The Court fixed this flaw by eliminating the required waiting period.
Conclusion
In summary, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a major decision in Charkaoui v. Canada about the legality of procedures for determining the proportionality of a security certificate. The Court determined that the Canadian security certificate procedure was unlawful in Charkaoui v. Canada. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act’s articles 33 and 77 to 85 were declared unconstitutional as a remedy. Additionally, the Court ruled that judicial confirmation of certificates and review of imprisonment were without consequence.
Reference
Charkaoui v. Canada (citizenship and immigration). (2007). Web.