Sogi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Sogi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2004-05-28 Neutral citation 2004 FCA 212 File numbers A-597-03 Notes Reported Decision Decision Content Date: 20040528 Docket: A-597-03 Citation: 2004 FCA 212 Present: STRAYER J.A. ROTHSTEIN J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: BACHAN SINGH SOGI Appellant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on April 28, 2004 Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 28, 2004. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: STRAYER J.A. MALONE J.A. Date: 20040528 Docket: A-597-03 Citation: 2004 FCA 212 Present: STRAYER J.A. ROTHSTEIN J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: BACHAN SINGH SOGI Appellant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ROTHSTEIN J.A. OVERVIEW [1] This is an appeal from a decision of MacKay J. of the Federal Court (2003 FC 1429). The issue is whether the procedure, whereby a member of the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board may, in making an admissibility decision, take into account security intelligence information without disclosing it to the affected individual, contravenes section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). [2] The appellant submits that section 7 is engaged because he is in detention and because he has suffered psychological stress and stigma. Accordingly, he asserts that his liberty and security of the person interests have been adversely affected. He says a member of the Immigration Division lacks the independence and expertise necessary to make an order that departs materially from the ordinary rules of procedural fairness by denying him the right to know the case he has to meet. He therefore submits that the procedure which confers this power on Immigration Division members does not accord with the principles of fundamental justice. FACTS [3] The appellant, a national of India, arrived in Canada on May 8, 2001 and made a claim for refugee protection. On August 7, 2002, an immigration officer reported his opinion to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the Minister) that the appellant was a member of the Babbar Khalsa International, an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts of terrorism. On the same day, the Minister referred the matter to the Immigration Division for an admissibility hearing. [4] The appellant has been in detention since August 8, 2002. [5] Before the member of the Immigration Division, the Minister applied, in camera and ex parte, for non-disclosure of certain information. The member determined that the information was relevant to the appellant's admissibility and that its disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of any person. The confidentiality application was granted on August 16, 2002 and the appellant was only provided with a summary of the information. [6] On October 8, 2002, the Immigration Division member determined that the appellant was inadmissible, pursuant to paragraph 34(1)(f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA), on the grounds alleged: that he was a member of a terrorist organization, the Babbar Khalsa International. [7] On judicial review, the Minister applied for continued non-disclosure of information, which was granted by MacKay J. on May 8, 2003. By Order dated December 16, 2003, MacKay J. dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review of the Immigration Division member's decision that the appellant was inadmissible. STATUTORY SCHEME [8] Subsection 44(1) of IRPA provides that an immigration officer who is of the opinion that a foreign national in Canada is inadmissible may submit a report of the relevant facts to the Minister. Under paragraph 34(1)(f), one ground of inadmissibility is that an individual is a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts of terrorism. Under subsection 44(2), the Minister may, if she is of the opinion that the report is well-founded, refer it to the Immigration Division for an admissibility hearing. [9] Subsection 86(1) provides that, during an admissibility hearing before the Immigration Division, the Minister may make application for non-disclosure of information. Subsection 86(2) provides that a member of the Immigration Division shall then determine the Minister's application in accordance with section 78. Section 78 provides, among other things, that if the Immigration Division is of the opinion that disclosure of the information would be injurious to national security or to the safety of any person, the Immigration Division member shall ensure the confidentiality of the information. Paragraph 78(g) provides that such information may be considered by the Immigration Division even though it is not disclosed to the affected individual. The affected individual is provided with a summary of the information under paragraph 78(h), but that summary does not include any information that the member considers would, if disclosed, be injurious to national security or to the safety of any person. [10] Paragraph 45(d) allows the Immigration Division member to make a removal order against the foreign national if satisfied that the foreign national is inadmissible. [11] Under section 72, the member's decision is subject to judicial review in the Federal Court if leave is obtained. Pursuant to section 87, on judicial review the Minister may apply for continued non-disclosure of information protected by the member's confidentiality order. Section 78 is again applicable to the non-disclosure application before the Court. [12] This procedure will be referred to in these reasons as the IRPA procedure. The relevant provisions of IRPA are set out in Appendix A. CERTIFIED QUESTION [13] MacKay J. certified the following question for appeal pursuant to paragraph 74(d) of IRPA: Does the procedure pursuant to ss. 44(2), 86 and 87 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act engage section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and if so, is any deprivation of liberty and security of person contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. ANALYSIS [14] Section 7 of the Charter provides: 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. 7. Chacun a droit à la vie, à la liberté et à la sécurité de sa personne; il ne peut être porté atteinte à ce droit qu'en conformité avec les principes de justice fondamentale. [15] In view of my determination that the IRPA procedure is not contrary to the principles of fundamental justice, it is not necessary to decide whether section 7 of the Charter is engaged. I will assume, without deciding, that it is. I turn then to the issue of fundamental justice. Decision of MacKay J. [16] MacKay J. compared the IRPA procedure to the security certificate procedure set out in sections 77 and 78 which the parties accepted was analogous to the procedure under section 40.1 of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 (the former Act). The procedure under the former Act was found not to contravene the principles of fundamental justice in Ahani v. Canada, [1995] 3 F.C. 669 (T.D.), aff'd (1996), 201 N.R. 233 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed [1997] 2 S.C.R. v. [17] MacKay J. identified two main differences between the security certificate procedure and the IRPA procedure: (1) initial certification of the information by two Ministers rather than one; and (2) review and assessment of information sought to be subject to an order for non-disclosure by a Federal Court judge rather than a member of the Immigration Division. [18] He also observed one other difference. Under subsection 80(3), the decision of the Federal Court judge that a security certificate is reasonable is not subject to appeal or judicial review. However, under the IRPA procedure, the inadmissibility decision of the Immigration Division member is subject to judicial review by a Federal Court judge, including review of the decision that information not be disclosed for reasons of national security. As MacKay J. put it, the Federal Court judge is involved in the process but at a stage removed from the somewhat similar role that the judge plays under sections 77 and 78. He therefore held that the differences between the two procedures were not sufficient to distinguish the IRPA procedure from the security certificate procedure. [19] It is not entirely clear why MacKay J. decided to compare the IRPA procedure to the security certificate procedure set out in sections 77 and 78 rather than directly to the procedure set out in former section 40.1. However, the parties accepted that the security certificate procedure was analogous to the procedure under the former Act. Accordingly, that MacKay J. did not explicitly compare the IRPA procedure to the procedure under the former Act does not constitute reversible error. In the end, he held that the IRPA Procedure did not contravene the principles of fundamental justice, for the same reasons that McGillis J. held that the former section 40.1 process did not do so in Ahani. The Appellant's Argument [20] The appellant, however, submits that the differences between the IRPA procedure and the procedure under the former Act are sufficiently significant to distinguish this case from Ahani. He states that, since a non-disclosure application under the IRPA procedure can be initiated by a mere delegate of one Minister, rather than two Ministers, acting personally, who were required to sign a security certificate, there is no political or legal accountability for the decision to seek a non-disclosure order. [21] The appellant also argues that a member of the Immigration Division has neither the expertise nor the institutional independence to weigh the interests of the public in keeping national security information confidential against the interests of the appellant to know the case he has to meet. The appellant says that under the former Act, the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, and the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, this issue has always been determined by a Federal Court judge because only a Federal Court judge has the requisite expertise and independence to make such a determination. Judicial Involvement in the IRPA Procedure [22] I am unable to accept the appellant's first argument. Regardless of how the process is initiated, the decision whether to withhold the confidential information from the affected individual, as discussed below, will eventually be considered by a judge of the Federal Court. The Minister will only be allowed to rely on the information without divulging it to the individual if the judge is convinced that the information is relevant and that its disclosure will be injurious to national security or to the safety of any person. [23] I am also unable to accept the appellant's second argument. It is based on a reading of section 86 in isolation. Read by itself, the section does not require judicial participation in the process of deciding whether information should be kept confidential. However, as MacKay J. found, a decision of the Immigration Division member is subject to judicial review upon an applicant obtaining leave. [24] The procedure under the former Act which required a Federal Court judge to make the initial and only decision regarding non-disclosure was found in Ahani to be in accordance with fundamental justice. As long as the availability of judicial review provides the appellant with an opportunity to have a Federal Court judge decide the propriety of keeping the information confidential, the IRPA procedure must also be found to be in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. [25] The question is whether the appellant has that opportunity. Three concerns must be addressed: 1. Does the Federal Court judge have an opportunity to review the confidential information? 2. Can the Federal Court judge review the correctness of the member's decision not to reveal the information or must the judge show deference to the member's assessment? 3. What remedies can the Federal Court judge order if the judge finds that the information should have been revealed? How the Confidential Information Gets Before the Federal Court Judge [26] In oral argument, both counsel agreed that the Immigration Division does not retain confidential information considered by the member; rather, the information is returned to the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS). It was suggested that, on judicial review, the Minister might, at her discretion, submit the same information, a portion of the information or indeed even other confidential information to the Federal Court judge through an application under section 87. [27] Normally, judicial reviews are conducted based on the record of the proceedings before the tribunal. The Court therefore asked for further written submissions on the procedure by which confidential information is placed before the judge conducting the judicial review. These submissions confirmed what was agreed on by counsel at the hearing. The joint submission stated that the justification for the retention of the information by CSIS is section 12 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-23 (CSIS Act) which provides: 12. The Service shall collect, by investigation or otherwise, to the extent that it is strictly necessary, and analyse and retain information and intelligence respecting activities that may on reasonable grounds be suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada and, in relation thereto, shall report to and advise the Government of Canada. 12. Le Service recueille, au moyen d'enquêtes ou autrement, dans la mesure strictement nécessaire, et analyse et conserve les informations et renseignements sur les activités dont il existe des motifs raisonnables de soupçonner qu'elles constituent des menaces envers la sécurité du Canada; il en fait rapport au gouvernement du Canada et le conseille à cet égard. [28] Based on my reading of the relevant statutory provisions and court rules, I am unable to accept the submissions of counsel for the parties as a correct interpretation of the relevant law. [29] Subsection 86(2) provides that the procedure set out in section 78 applies to the determination of an application for non-disclosure before an Immigration Division member, as if the reference to a "judge" in section 78 referred to the member. [30] If the member decides that information or evidence is not relevant or that it is relevant but should be included in the summary provided to the individual, paragraph 78(f) requires the information to be returned to the Minister. However, paragraph 78(g), which allows the member to consider relevant but potentially injurious material without disclosing it, makes no mention of subsequently returning the considered material to the Minister. Any information considered by the member under paragraph 78(g) should thus form part of the Immigration Division's record, albeit a confidential portion. [31] Under Rule 14 of the Federal Court Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22, "where the judge considers that documents in the possession or control of the tribunal are required for the proper disposition of the application for leave," the judge may order the Immigration Division to produce the documents to the Court. Once leave is granted, Rule 17 requires the Board to prepare a record including, among other things, "all papers relevant to the matter that are in the possession or control of the tribunal" and submit it to the Court. When the confidential information is produced to the Court, either on the leave application or at the hearing of the judicial review, the Minister may make an application under subsection 87(1) for continued non-disclosure. [32] As earlier explained, it appears that, for security reasons, the usual practice was for physical custody of this information to remain with CSIS. I am not entirely satisfied that section 12 of the CSIS Act necessarily requires this procedure. Just as confidential documents considered by the Federal Court on judicial review may be retained by that Court in a sealed record accessible only by a designated judge, I see no reason why a similar procedure could not apply to the Immigration Division. [33] However, if the information is to be returned to CSIS, an undertaking must be given that the precise information that was before the Immigration Division member will be produced for judicial review purposes if required. The confidential information must be retained intact in a format that allows for precise identification of exactly what information was considered by the Immigration Division member in making the inadmissibility decision. The information that has been considered by the Immigration Division but returned to CSIS must be considered information "under the control of the tribunal" for the purpose of its production to the Federal Court on judicial review. If the information is returned to CSIS, the onus is on the Minister to satisfy the judge hearing the judicial review that the precise record that was before the member has been provided to the Court. The precise record will include the confidential information and any transcript of evidence given in the in camera proceeding before the member. [34] In the event the evidence was not transcribed, an affidavit attesting to the evidence given before the member would be required. Because the proceeding was conducted ex parte, the judge hearing the judicial review must be satisfied that this affidavit sets out completely the evidence that was before the member. One method of satisfying the judge could be to produce an affidavit from one of the Minister's counsel who appeared before the member attesting, as an officer of the court, that the first affidavit accurately reflects all evidence given in the in camera proceedings. [35] Federal Court judges deciding whether to grant leave in a judicial review involving a member's decision not to disclose may, under Rule 14, if they consider it necessary, order the Immigration Division to provide the confidential information. I would expect that, unless it is clear from the public record that leave should be refused, a Federal Court judge would order production of the confidential information and review it before dismissing the application for leave. I do not see how a judge could otherwise dismiss a leave application without reviewing the confidential information. Of course, if leave is to be granted, either on consent or because the public record discloses grounds for granting leave, the judge granting leave need not review the confidential information. [36] Once leave is granted, the confidential information will, pursuant to Rule 17, automatically become part of the record before the judge hearing the application for judicial review. This portion of the record should be sealed and available only to the judge designated to hear the judicial review. [37] I cannot accept that section 87 allows new confidential information to be submitted on the application for judicial review. In my view, section 87 presumes that a complete and accurate record containing the confidential information will be provided to the Court hearing the judicial review. Subsection 87(1) merely allows the Minister to make an application for the continued non-disclosure of any or all of the information that was protected by the Immigration Division member under subsection 86(1). [38] This view of subsection 87(1) is supported by subsection 87(2) which expressly does not require the provision of a further summary to the affected individual. Such a further summary would be required if the Minister had a discretion under subsection 87(1) to submit new confidential information that was not before the Immigration Division member. [39] I conclude therefore that, under the IRPA Procedure and the Federal Court Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, the Federal Court judge hearing a judicial review involving a confidentiality order made by an Immigration Division member will have an opportunity to review the confidential information and in camera evidence that was before the member. The Standard of Review is Correctness [40] On judicial review, the Federal Court judge is reviewing the inadmissibility decision of the Immigration Division member. One component of that decision may be whether information supplied by the Minister in camera should have been considered by the member without completely disclosing it to the affected individual. [41] The appellant argued that on judicial review, the Court may only interfere with the Immigration Division member's non-disclosure decision if the decision is patently unreasonable. If this argument is correct, it is arguable that the Federal Court judge will not review the decision to keep the information confidential with the same degree of intensity as that performed by a judge under the section 40.1 procedure found constitutional in Ahani. Therefore, the question of the standard of review to be applied by the Federal Court judge in reviewing the decision of the Immigration Division member not to disclose the confidential information is critical to assessing the similarity of the IRPA procedure to the procedure under the former Act. [42] MacKay J. applied the pragmatic and functional approach to determine that this review should be conducted on a correctness basis. I agree. [43] Of the four factors which the Supreme Court has held must be considered in determining the appropriate standard of review (see Dr. Q v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226), three point to a less deferential standard. The first factor is the presence or absence of a privative clause. Here, there is no applicable privative clause; instead, sections 72 to 75 expressly recognize that inadmissibility decisions are subject to judicial review once leave is obtained. [44] The second factor is whether the decision is polycentric or one in which the state is the singular adversary of the individual. Section 86 requires balancing the right of the Minister to confidentiality against the right of the appellant to know the case he has to meet. This is not a polycentric issue but one between the state and the individual to which less deference should be shown. [45] The third factor is the relative expertise of the Court and the tribunal. Federal Court judges are experts in assessing the advisability of disclosing security intelligence information. In section 40.1 of the former Act, sections 77 and 78 of IRPA, sections 38 to 38.15 of the Canada Evidence Act, sections 83.05 and 83.06 of the Criminal Code, section 52 of the Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1, and section 51 of the Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21, Parliament has given the task of deciding how much security intelligence information can be disclosed without unduly endangering national security to the Chief Justice of the Federal Court and other Federal Court judges designated by the Chief Justice (see Appendix B). Parliament has precluded not only administrative tribunal members but even judges of provincial superior courts from this task. It appears that, in a number of legislative contexts, Parliament considers Federal Court judges best-suited to determine the appropriateness of disclosing information that could be injurious to national security. [46] While the enactment of section 86 of IRPA indicates that Parliament now considers Immigration Division members to have sufficient expertise to consider non-disclosure applications, the wider range of legislation in which Parliament has given the task of assessing the proper level of disclosure to Federal Court judges suggests that Parliament considers Federal Court judges to have greater relative expertise. As well, the question of whether an affected individual should be denied the opportunity to fully know the case against him on national security grounds raises issues of fairness, an area which has traditionally been the domain of the courts. Expertise considerations therefore favour less deference. [47] The fourth factor is the nature of the question. Whether disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of any person is a legal standard which must be applied to the facts as found by the member. The question is thus one of mixed fact and law which suggests a more deferential standard. However, in reviewing the decision of an administrative tribunal, the nature of the question is just one of the four factors to consider (Dr. Q at paragraph 33). [48] The Supreme Court has held that expertise is "the most important of the factors that a court must consider in settling on a standard of review" (Canada (Director of Investigations and Research, Competition Act) v. Southam, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748 at paragraph 50). On balance, I am of the opinion that the proper standard of review on the question of whether relevant information should be disclosed to the affected individual is correctness. [49] As a result, a Federal Court judge conducting a judicial review of an Immigration Division member's decision to order non-disclosure of information to the affected individual will review the member's decision on a correctness standard. To uphold the member's decision, the judge must agree with it. If he or she does not, the judicial review will be allowed. [50] In considering the correctness of the Immigration Division member's non-disclosure decision, the Federal Court judge will make his or her own assessment of whether disclosure of the confidential information would be injurious to national security or to the safety of any person. Doing so will require a review of the information which was the subject of the member's decision and any explanations of that information provided by witnesses who appeared ex parte before the member. [51] Unlike the procedure under the former Act, here the Federal Court judge will be reviewing the correctness of the Immigration Division member's decision rather than making an initial decision. That is, the Federal Court judge will not be hearing fresh evidence explaining the reasons for non-disclosure. Rather, the Federal Court judge will be reviewing the confidential information that was before the Immigration Division member and any evidence given in the in camera proceedings before the member. [52] The confidential portion of the IRPA procedure was conducted ex parte. Accordingly, the onus is on the Minister to satisfy the judge that the member's decision not to disclose was correct. If the judge is not satisfied because he or she finds the witness' explanations inadequate for any material reason, the judicial review will be allowed and the decision on inadmissibility will be remitted to the Immigration Division for redetermination. The Proper Remedy if the Judicial Review is Allowed [53] If the judicial review is allowed, the information will not immediately be disclosed. Rather, in remitting the matter to the Immigration Division, the judge may direct that some or all of the information be included in the summary to be provided to the affected individual. In such a case, it will be up to the Minister to decide whether that information should be disclosed to the individual in order to allow it to be considered by the Immigration Division member or withdrawn from consideration in order to maintain the confidentiality of the information. The IRPA Procedure is Constitutional [54] The precise record that was before the Immigration Division member will be before the judge conducting the judicial review and the member's decision not to disclose the confidential information will be reviewed on a correctness standard. For these reasons, I agree with MacKay J. that the IRPA procedure is in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice because it is sufficiently similar to the procedure under the former Act which was upheld in Ahani.As the IRPA procedure conforms with the principles of fundamental justice, there is no violation of section 7 and the IRPA procedure is constitutional. MacKay J. Complied with the IRPA Procedure [55] The appellant did not allege that MacKay J. failed to properly review the decision of the Immigration Division member; rather, he attacked the constitutionality of the statutory regime under which that decision was made. However, as my finding that the IRPA procedure is constitutional is based on the opportunity for a correctness review of the member's non-disclosure order by a Federal Court judge, I will consider whether MacKay J. did in fact conduct his own review of the propriety of not disclosing the confidential information to the appellant. [56] At paragraphs 22 to 25 of his December 8, 2003, Reasons for Order, MacKay J. states that the information that had not been disclosed to the appellant in the course of his inadmissibility hearing was put before the Court in in camera hearings. He also confirms that no other information was introduced then or at any later time. MacKay J. thus had access to the information that was before the Immigration Division member and no other information. [57] As stated above, MacKay J. held that the standard of review of the Immigration Division member's decision not to disclose the information to the appellant was correctness (paragraph 28). He thus applied the proper standard of review to the member's decision. [58] After considering the confidential information, MacKay J. determined that the information was relevant to the issues before the Court and that its disclosure would be injurious to national security. Conducting his own assessment of the confidential information, he found that the Immigration Division member did not err in concluding that the information should be considered without revealing it to the appellant (paragraph 37). [59] MacKay J. found that the Immigration Division member was correct to order non-disclosure. This conclusion was open to him and should not be disturbed on appeal. CONCLUSION [60] The appeal should be dismissed and the certified question answered in the negative. "Marshall Rothstein" J.A. "I agree B.L. Strayer J.A." "I agree B. Malone J.A." APPENDIX A - THE IRPA PROCEDURE Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2. (1) The definitions in this subsection apply in this Act. ... "foreign national" means a person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident, and includes a stateless person. 2. (1) Les définitions qui suivent s'appliquent à la présente loi. ... « _étranger_ » Personne autre qu'un citoyen canadien ou un résident permanent; la présente définition vise également les apatrides. 34. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for (a) engaging in an act of espionage or an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada; (b) engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government; (c) engaging in terrorism; ... (f) being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c). 34. (1) Emportent interdiction de territoire pour raison de sécurité les faits suivants_: a) être l'auteur d'actes d'espionnage ou se livrer à la subversion contre toute institution démocratique, au sens où cette expression s'entend au Canada; b) être l'instigateur ou l'auteur d'actes visant au renversement d'un gouvernement par la force; c) se livrer au terrorisme; ... f) être membre d'une organisation dont il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu'elle est, a été ou sera l'auteur d'un acte visé aux alinéas a), b) ou c). 44. (1) An officer who is of the opinion that a permanent resident or a foreign national who is in Canada is inadmissible may prepare a report setting out the relevant facts, which report shall be transmitted to the Minister. 44. (1) S'il estime que le résident permanent ou l'étranger qui se trouve au Canada est interdit de territoire, l'agent peut établir un rapport circonstancié, qu'il transmet au ministre. (2) If the Minister is of the opinion that the report is well-founded, the Minister may refer the report to the Immigration Division for an admissibility hearing, .... (2) S'il estime le rapport bien fondé, le ministre peut déférer l'affaire à la Section de l'immigration pour enquête, .... 45. The Immigration Division, at the conclusion of an admissibility hearing, shall make one of the following decisions: ... (d) make the applicable removal order against a foreign national who has not been authorized to enter Canada, if it is not satisfied that the foreign national is not inadmissible, or against a foreign national who has been authorized to enter Canada or a permanent resident, if it is satisfied that the foreign national or the permanent resident is inadmissible. 45. Après avoir procédé à une enquête, la Section de l'immigration rend telle des décisions suivantes_: ... d) prendre la mesure de renvoi applicable contre l'étranger non autorisé à entrer au Canada et dont il n'est pas prouvé qu'il n'est pas interdit de territoire, ou contre l'étranger autorisé à y entrer ou le résident permanent sur preuve qu'il est interdit de territoire. 72. (1) Judicial review by the Federal Court with respect to any matter - a decision, determination or order made, a measure taken or a question raised - under this Act is commenced by making an application for leave to the Court. 72. (1) Le contrôle judiciaire par la Cour fédérale de toute mesure - décision, ordonnance, question ou affaire - prise dans le cadre de la présente loi est subordonné au dépôt d'une demande d'autorisation. 74. Judicial review is subject to the following provisions: ... (d) an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal may be made only if, in rendering judgment, the judge certifies that a serious question of general importance is involved and states the question. 74. Les règles suivantes s'appliquent à la demande de contrôle judiciaire_: ... d) le jugement consécutif au contrôle judiciaire n'est susceptible d'appel en Cour d'appel fédérale que si le juge certifie que l'affaire soulève une question grave de portée générale et énonce celle-ci. 76. The definitions in this section apply in this Division. "information" means security or criminal intelligence information and information that is obtained in confidence from a source in Canada, from the government of a foreign state, from an international organization of states or from an institution of either of them. "judge" means the Chief Justice of the Federal Court or a judge of that Court designated by the Chief Justice. 76. Les définitions qui suivent s'appliquent à la présente section. « _juge_ » Le juge en chef de la Cour fédérale ou le juge de cette juridiction désigné par celui-ci. « _renseignements_ » Les renseignements en matière de sécurité ou de criminalité et ceux obtenus, sous le sceau du secret, de source canadienne ou du gouvernement d'un État étranger, d'une organisation internationale mise sur pied par des États ou de l'un de leurs organismes. 77. (1) The Minister and the Solicitor General of Canada shall sign a certificate stating that a permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality and refer it to the Federal Court, which shall make a determination under section 80. 77. (1) Le ministre et le solliciteur général du Canada déposent à la Cour fédérale le certificat attestant qu'un résident permanent ou qu'un étranger est interdit de territoire pour raison de sécurité ou pour atteinte aux droits humains ou internationaux, grande criminalité ou criminalité organisée pour qu'il en soit disposé au titre de l'article 80. 78. The following provisions govern the determination: (a) the judge shall hear the matter; (b) the judge shall ensure the confidentiality of the information on which the certificate is based and of any other evidence that may be provided to the judge if, in the opinion of the judge, its disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of any person; (c) the judge shall deal with all matters as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness and natural justice permit; (d) the judge shall examine the information and any other evidence in private within seven days after the referral of the certificate for determination; (e) on each request of the Minister or the Solicitor General of Canada made at any time during the proceedings, the judge shall hear all or part of the information or evidence in the absence of the permanent resident or the foreign national named in the certificate and their counsel if, in the opinion of the judge, its disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of any person; (f) the information or evidence described in paragraph (e) shall be returned to the Minister and the Solicitor General of Canada and shall not be considered by the judge in deciding whether the certificate is reasonable if either the matter is withdrawn or if the judge determines that the information or evidence is not relevant or, if it is relevant, that it should be part of the summary; (g) the information or evidence described in paragraph (e) shall not be included in the summary but may be considered by the judge in deciding whether the certificate is reasonable if the judge determines that the information or evidence is relevant but that its disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of any person; (h) the judge shall provide the permanent resident or the foreign national with a summary of the information or evidence that enables them to be reasonably informed of the circumstances giving rise to the certificate, but that does not include anything that in the opinion of the judge would be injurious to national security or to the safety of any person if disclosed; (i) the judge shall provide the permanent resident or the foreign national with an opportunity to be heard regarding their inadmissibility; and (j) the judge may receive into evidence anything that, in the opinion of the judge, is appropriate, even if it is inadmissible in a court of law, and may base the decision on that evidence. 78. Les règles suivantes s'appliquent à l'affaire_: a) le juge entend l'affaire; b) le juge est tenu de garantir la confidentialité des renseignements justifiant le certificat et des autres éléments de preuve qui pourraient lui être communiqués et dont la divulgation porterait atteinte, selon lui, à la sécurité nationale ou à la sécurité d'autrui; c) il procède, dans la mesure où les circonstances et les considérations d'équité et de justice naturelle le permettent, sans formalisme et selon la procédure expéditive; d) il examine, dans les sept jours suivant le dépôt du certificat et à huis clos, les renseignements et autres éléments de preuve; e) à chaque demande d'un ministre, il examine, en l'absence du résident permanent ou de l'étranger et de son conseil, tout ou partie des renseignements ou autres éléments de preuve dont la divulgation porterait atteinte, selon lui, à la sécurité nationale ou à la sécurité d'autrui; f) ces renseignements ou éléments de preuve doivent être remis aux ministres et ne peuvent servir de fondement à l'affaire soit si le juge décide qu'ils ne sont pas pertinents ou, l'étant, devraient faire partie du résumé, soit en cas de retrait de la demande; g) si le juge décide qu'ils sont pertinents, mais que leur divulgation porterait atteinte à la sécurité nationale ou à celle d'autrui, ils ne peuvent faire partie du résumé, mais peuvent servir de fondement à l'affaire; h) le juge fournit au résident permanent ou à l'étranger, afin de lui permettre d'être suffisamment informé des circonstances ayant donné lieu au certificat, un résumé de la preuve ne comportant aucun élément dont la divulgation porterait atteinte, selon lui, à la sécurité nationale ou à la sécurité d'autrui; i) il donne au résident permanent ou à l'étranger la possibilité d'être entendu sur l'interdiction de territoire le visant; j) il peut recevoir et admettre en preuve tout élément qu'il estime utile - même inadmissible en justice - et peut fonder sa décision sur celui-ci. 86. (1) The Minister may, during an admissibility hearing, a detention review or an appeal before the Immigration Appeal Division, make an application for non-disclosure of information. 86. (1) Le ministre peut, dans le cadre de l'appel devant la Section d'appel de l'immigration, du contrôle de la détention ou de l'enquête demander l'interdiction de la divulgation des renseignements. (2) Section 78 applies to the determination of the application, with any modifications that the circumstances require, including that a reference to "judge" be read as a reference to the applicable Division of the Board. (2) L'article 78 s'applique à l'examen de la demande, avec les adaptations nécessaires, la mention de juge valant mention de la section compétente de la Commission. 87. (1) The Minister may, in the course of a judicial review, make an application to the judge for the non-disclosure of any information with respect to information protected under subsection 86(1) or information considered under section 11, 112 or 115. 87. (1) Le ministre peut, dans le cadre d'un contrôle judiciaire, demander au juge d'interdire la divulgation de tout renseignement protégé au titre du paragraphe 86(1) ou pris en compte dans le cadre des articles 11, 112 ou 115. (2) Section 78, except for the provisions relating to the obligation to provide a summary and the time limit referred to in paragraph 78(d), applies to the determination of the application, with any modifications that the circumstances require. (2) L'article 78 s'applique à l'examen de la demande, avec les adaptations nécessaires, sauf quant à l'obligation de fournir un résumé et au délai. Federal Court Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules 14. (2) Where the judge considers that documents in the possession or control of the tribunal are required for the proper disposition of the application for leave, the judge may, by order, specify the documents to be produced and filed and give such other directions as the judge considers necessary to dispose of the application for leave. 14. (2) Dans le cas où le juge décide que les documents en la possession ou sous la garde du tribunal administratif sont nécessaires pour décider de la demande d'autorisation, il peut, par ordonnance, spécifier les documents à produire et à déposer, et donner d'autres instructions qu'il estime nécessaires à cette décision. (3) The Registry shall send to the tribunal a copy of an order made under subrule (2) forthwith after it is made. (3) Le greffe envoie immédiatement au tribunal administratif une copie de l'ordonnance rendue en vertu du paragraphe (2). (4) Upon receipt of an order under subrule (2), the tribunal shall, without delay, send a copy of the materials specified in the order, duly certified by an appropriate officer to be correct, to each of the parties, and two copies to the Registry. (4) Dès réception de l'ordonnance rendue en vertu du paragraphe (2), le tribunal administratif envoie à chacune des parties une copie des documents spécifiés, certifiée conforme par un fonctionnaire compétent, et au greffe de la Cour deux copies de ces documents. 15. (2) The Registry shall send to the tribunal a copy of an order granting leave forthwith after it is made. 15. (2) Le greffe envoie immédiatement au tribunal une copie de l'ordonnance faisant droit à la demande d'autorisation. 17. Upon receipt of an order under Rule 15, a tribunal shall, without delay, prepare a record containing the following, on consecutively numbered pages and in the following order: (a) the decision or order in respect of which the application for judicial review is made and the written reasons given therefor, (b) all papers relevant to the matter that are in the possession or control of the tribunal, (c) any affidavits, or other documents filed during any such hearing, and (d) a transcript, if any, of any oral testimony given during the hearing, giving rise to the decision or order or other matter that is the subject of the application for judicial review, and shall send a copy, duly certified by an appropriate officer to be correct, to each of the parties and two copies to the Registry. 17. Dès réception de l'ordonnance visée à la règle 15, le tribunal administratif constitue un dossier composé des pièces suivantes, disposées dans l'ordre suivant sur des pages numérotées consécutivement : a) la décision, l'ordonnance ou la mesure visée par la demande de contrôle judiciaire, ainsi que les motifs écrits y afférents; b) tous les documents pertinents qui sont en la possession ou sous la garde du tribunal administratif, c) les affidavits et autres documents déposés lors de l'audition, d) la transcription, s'il y a lieu, de tout témoignage donné de vive voix à l'audition qui a abouti à la décision, à l'ordonnance, à la mesure ou à la question visée par la demande de contrôle judiciaire, dont il envoie à chacune des parties une copie certifiée conforme par un fonctionnaire compétent et au greffe deux copies de ces documents. APPENDIX B - CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND THE FEDERAL COURT Immigration Act 40.1 (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, where the Minister and the Solicitor General of Canada are of the opinion, based on security or criminal intelligence reports received and considered by them, that a person, other than a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, is a person described in subparagraph 19(1)(c.1)(ii), paragraph 19(1)(c.2), (d), (e), (f), (g), (j), (k) or (l) or subparagraph 19(2)(a.1)(ii), they may sign and file a certificate to that effect with an immigration officer, a senior immigration officer or an adjudicator. 40.1 (1) Par dérogation aux autres dispositions de la présente loi, le ministre et le solliciteur général du Canada peuvent, s'ils sont d'avis, à la lumière de renseignements secrets en matière de séc urité ou de criminalité dont ils ont eu connaissance, qu'une personne qui n'est ni citoyen canadien ni résident permanent appartiendrait à l'une des catégories visées au sous-alinéa 19(1)c.1)(ii), aux alinéas 19(1)c.2), d), e), f), g), j), k) ou l) ou au sous-alinéa 19(2)a.1)(ii), signer et remettre une attestation à cet effet à un agent d'immigration, un agent principal ou un arbitre. (3) Where a certificate referred to in subsection (1) is filed in accordance with that subsection, the Minister shall (a) forthwith cause a copy of the certificate to be referred to the Federal Court for a determination as to whether the certificate should be quashed; and ... (3) En cas de remise de l'attestation prévue au paragraphe (1), le ministre est tenu : a) d'une part, d'en transmettre sans délai un double à la Cour fédérale pour qu'il soit décidé si l'attestation doit être annulée; ... (4) Where a certificate is referred to the Federal Court pursuant to subsection (3), the Chief Justice of that Court or a judge of that Court designated by the Chief Justice for the purposes of this section shall (a) examine within seven days, in camera, the security or criminal intelligence reports considered by the Minister and the Solicitor General and hear any other evidence or information that may be presented by or on behalf of those Ministers and may, on the request of the Minister or the Solicitor General, hear all or part of such evidence or information in the absence of the person named in the certificate and any counsel representing the person where, in the opinion of the Chief Justice or the designated judge, as the case may be, the evidence or information should not be disclosed on the grounds that the disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of persons; (b) provide the person named in the certificate with a statement summarizing such information available to the Chief Justice or the designated judge, as the case may be, as will enable the person to be reasonably informed of the circumstances giving rise to the issue of the certificate, having regard to whether, in the opinion of the Chief Justice or the designated judge, as the case may be, the information should not be disclosed on the grounds that the disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of persons; (c) provide the person named in the certificate with a reasonable opportunity to be heard; (d) determine whether the certificate filed by the Minister and the Solicitor General is reasonable on the basis of the evidence and information available to the Chief Justice or the designated judge, as the case may be, and, if found not to be reasonable, quash the certificate; and (e) notify the Minister, the Solicitor General and the person named in the certificate of the determination made pursuant to paragraph (d). (4) Lorsque la Cour fédérale est saisie de l'attestation, le juge en chef de celle-ci ou le juge de celle-ci qu'il délègue pour l'application du présent article : a) examine dans les sept jours, à huis clos, les renseignements secrets en matière de sécurité ou de criminalité dont le ministre et le solliciteur général ont eu connaissance et recueille les autres éléments de preuve ou d'information présentés par ces derniers ou en leur nom; il peut en outre, à la demande du ministre ou du solliciteur général, recueillir tout ou partie de ces éléments en l'absence de l'intéressé et du conseiller le représentant, lorsque, à son avis, leur communication porterait atteinte à la sécurité nationale ou à celle de personnes; b) fournit à l'intéressé un résumé des informations dont il dispose, à l'exception de celles dont la communication pourrait, à son avis, porter atteinte à la sécurité nationale ou à celle de personnes, afin de permettre à celui-ci d'être suffisamment informé des circonstances ayant donné lieu à l'attestation; c) donne à l'intéressé la possibilité d'être entendu; d) décide si l'attestation est raisonnable, compte tenu des éléments de preuve et d'information à sa disposition, et, dans le cas contraire, annule l'attestation; e) avise le ministre, le solliciteur général et l'intéressé de la décision rendue aux termes de l'alinéa d). (6) A determination under paragraph (4)(d) is not subject to appeal or review by any court. (6) La décision visée à l'alinéa (4)d) ne peut être portée en appel ni être revue par aucun tribunal. Canada Evidence Act 38. The following definitions apply in this section and in sections 38.01 to 38.15. "judge" means the Chief Justice of the Federal Court or a judge of that Court designated by the Chief Justice to conduct hearings under section 38.04. ... "potentially injurious information" means information of a type that, if it were disclosed to the public, could injure international relations or national defence or national security. "proceeding" means a proceeding before a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information. ... "sensitive information" means information relating to international relations or national defence or national security that is in the possession of the Government of Canada, whether originating from inside or outside Canada, and is of a type that the Government of Canada is taking measures to safeguard. 38. Les définitions qui suivent s'appliquent au présent article et aux articles 38.01 à 38.15. « _instance_ » Procédure devant un tribunal, un organisme ou une personne ayant le pouvoir de contraindre la production de renseignements. « _juge_ » Le juge en chef de la Cour fédérale ou le juge de ce tribunal désigné par le juge en chef pour statuer sur les questions dont est saisi le tribunal en application de l'article 38.04. ... « _renseignements potentiellement préjudiciables_ » Les renseignements qui, s'ils sont divulgués, sont susceptibles de porter préjudice aux relations internationales ou à la défense ou à la sécurité nationales. « _renseignements sensibles_ » Les renseignements, en provenance du Canada ou de l'étranger, qui concernent les affaires internationales ou la défense ou la sécurité nationales, qui se trouvent en la possession du gouvernement du Canada et qui sont du type des renseignements à l'égard desquels celui-ci prend des mesures de protection. 38.04 (1) The Attorney General of Canada may, at any time and in any circumstances, apply to the Federal Court for an order with respect to the disclosure of information about which notice was given under any of subsections 38.01(1) to (4). 38.04 (1) Le procureur général du Canada peut, à tout moment et en toutes circonstances, demander à la Cour fédérale de rendre une ordonnance portant sur la divulgation de renseignements à l'égard desquels il a reçu un avis au titre de l'un des paragraphes 38.01(1) à (4). (2) If, with respect to information about which notice was given under any of subsections 38.01(1) to (4), the Attorney General of Canada does not provide notice of a decision in accordance with subsection 38.03(3) or, other than by an agreement under section 38.031, authorizes the disclosure of only part of the information or disclosure subject to any conditions, (a) the Attorney General of Canada shall apply to the Federal Court for an order with respect to disclosure of the information if a person who gave notice under subsection 38.01(1) or (2) is a witness; (b) a person, other than a witness, who is required to disclose information in connection with a proceeding shall apply to the Federal Court for an order with respect to disclosure of the information; and (c) a person who is not required to disclose information in connection with a proceeding but who wishes to disclose it or to cause its disclosure may apply to the Federal Court for an order with respect to disclosure of the information. (2) Si, en ce qui concerne des renseignements à l'égard desquels il a reçu un avis au titre de l'un des paragraphes 38.01(1) à (4), le procureur général du Canada n'a pas notifié sa décision à l'auteur de l'avis en conformité avec le paragraphe 38.03(3) ou, sauf par un accord conclu au titre de l'article 38.031, il a autorisé la divulgation d'une partie des renseignements ou a assorti de conditions son autorisation de divulgation_: a) il est tenu de demander à la Cour fédérale de rendre une ordonnance concernant la divulgation des renseignements si la personne qui l'a avisé au titre des paragraphes 38.01(1) ou (2) est un témoin; b) la personne - à l'exclusion d'un témoin - qui a l'obligation de divulguer des renseignements dans le cadre d'une instance est tenue de demander à la Cour fédérale de rendre une ordonnance concernant la divulgation des renseignements; c) la personne qui n'a pas l'obligation de divulguer des renseignements dans le cadre d'une instance, mais qui veut en divulguer ou en faire divulguer, peut demander à la Cour fédérale de rendre une ordonnance concernant la divulgation des renseignements. 38.06 (1) Unless the judge concludes that the disclosure of the information would be injurious to international relations or national defence or national security, the judge may, by order, authorize the disclosure of the information. 38.06 (1) Le juge peut rendre une ordonnance autorisant la divulgation des renseignements, sauf s'il conclut qu'elle porterait préjudice aux relations internationales ou à la défense ou à la sécurité nationales. (2) If the judge concludes that the disclosure of the information would be injurious to international relations or national defence or national security but that the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance the public interest in non-disclosure, the judge may by order, after considering both the public interest in disclosure and the form of and conditions to disclosure that are most likely to limit any injury to international relations or national defence or national security resulting from disclosure, authorize the disclosure, subject to any conditions that the judge considers appropriate, of all of the information, a part or summary of the information, or a written admission of facts relating to the information. (2) Si le juge conclut que la divulgation des renseignements porterait préjudice aux relations internationales ou à la défense ou à la sécurité nationales, mais que les raisons d'intérêt public qui justifient la divulgation l'emportent sur les raisons d'intérêt public qui justifient la non-divulgation, il peut par ordonnance, compte tenu des raisons d'intérêt public qui justifient la divulgation ainsi que de la forme et des conditions de divulgation les plus susceptibles de limiter le préjudice porté aux relations internationales ou à la défense ou à la sécurité nationales, autoriser, sous réserve des conditions qu'il estime indiquées, la divulgation de tout ou partie des renseignements, d'un résumé de ceux-ci ou d'un aveu écrit des faits qui y sont liés. (3) If the judge does not authorize disclosure under subsection (1) or (2), the judge shall, by order, confirm the prohibition of disclosure. (3) Dans le cas où le juge n'autorise pas la divulgation au titre des paragraphes (1) ou (2), il rend une ordonnance confirmant l'interdiction de divulgation. Criminal Code 83.05 (1) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, establish a list on which the Governor in Council may place any entity if, on the recommendation of the Solicitor General of Canada, the Governor in Council is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that (a) the entity has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity; or (b) the entity is knowingly acting on behalf of, at the direction of or in association with an entity referred to in paragraph (a). 83.05 (1) Le gouverneur en conseil peut, par règlement, établir une liste sur laquelle il inscrit toute entité dont il est convaincu, sur la recommandation du solliciteur général du Canada, qu'il existe des motifs raisonnables de croire_: a) que, sciemment, elle s'est livrée ou a tenté de se livrer à une activité terroriste, y a participé ou l'a facilitée; b) que, sciemment, elle agit au nom d'une entité visée à l'alinéa a), sous sa direction ou en collaboration avec elle. (2) On application in writing by a listed entity, the Solicitor General shall decide whether there are reasonable grounds to recommend to the Governor in Council that the applicant no longer be a listed entity. (2) Le solliciteur général, saisi d'une demande écrite présentée par une entité inscrite, décide s'il a des motifs raisonnables de recommander ou non au gouverneur en conseil de radier celle-ci de la liste. (4) The Solicitor General must give notice without delay to the applicant of any decision taken or deemed to have been taken respecting the application referred to in subsection (2). (4) Il donne sans délai au demandeur un avis de la décision qu'il a rendue ou qu'il est réputé avoir rendue relativement à la demande. (5) Within 60 days after the receipt of the notice of the decision referred to in subsection (4), the applicant may apply to a judge for judicial review of the decision. (5) Dans les soixante jours suivant la réception de l'avis, le demandeur peut présenter au juge une demande de révision de la décision. (6) When an application is made under subsection (5), the judge shall, without delay (a) examine, in private, any security or criminal intelligence reports considered in listing the applicant and hear any other evidence or information that may be presented by or on behalf of the Solicitor General and may, at the request of the Solicitor General, hear all or part of that evidence or information in the absence of the applicant and any counsel representing the applicant, if the judge is of the opinion that the disclosure of the information would injure national security or endanger the safety of any person; (b) provide the applicant with a statement summarizing the information available to the judge so as to enable the applicant to be reasonably informed of the reasons for the decision, without disclosing any information the disclosure of which would, in the judge's opinion, injure national security or endanger the safety of any person; (c) provide the applicant with a reasonable opportunity to be heard; and (d) determine whether the decision is reasonable on the basis of the information available to the judge and, if found not to be reasonable, order that the applicant no longer be a listed entity. (6) Dès qu'il est saisi de la demande, le juge procède de la façon suivante_: a) il examine à huis clos les renseignements en matière de sécurité ou de criminalité qui ont été pris en considération pour l'inscription du demandeur sur la liste et recueille les autres éléments de preuve ou d'information présentés par le solliciteur général ou en son nom; il peut, à la demande de celui-ci, recueillir tout ou partie de ces éléments en l'absence du demandeur ou de son avocat, s'il estime que leur divulgation porterait atteinte à la sécurité nationale ou à la sécurité d'autrui; b) il fournit au demandeur un résumé de l'information dont il dispose - sauf celle dont la divulgation pourrait, à son avis, porter atteinte à la sécurité nationale ou à la sécurité d'autrui - afin de lui permettre d'être suffisamment informé des motifs de la décision; c) il donne au demandeur la possibilité d'être entendu; d) il décide si la décision est raisonnable compte tenu de l'information dont il dispose et, dans le cas où il décide que la décision n'est pas raisonnable, il ordonne la radiation. (11) In this section, "judge" means the Chief Justice of the Federal Court or a judge of that Court designated by the Chief Justice. (11) Au présent article, « _juge_ » s'entend du juge en chef de la Cour fédérale ou du juge de cette juridiction désigné par celui-ci. 83.06 (1) For the purposes of subsection 83.05(6), in private and in the absence of the applicant or any counsel representing it, (a) the Solicitor General of Canada may make an application to the judge for the admission of information obtained in confidence from a government, an institution or an agency of a foreign state, from an international organization of states or from an institution or an agency of an international organization of states; and (b) the judge shall examine the information and provide counsel representing the Solicitor General with a reasonable opportunity to be heard as to whether the information is relevant but should not be disclosed to the applicant or any counsel representing it because the disclosure would injure national security or endanger the safety of any person. 83.06 (1) Pour l'application du paragraphe 83.05(6), procédant à huis clos et en l'absence du demandeur ou de son avocat_: a) le solliciteur général du Canada peut présenter au juge une demande en vue de faire admettre en preuve des renseignements obtenus sous le sceau du secret du gouvernement d'un État étranger ou d'une organisation internationale d'États, ou de l'un de leurs organismes; b) le juge examine les renseignements et accorde à l'avocat du solliciteur général la possibilité de lui présenter ses arguments sur la pertinence des renseignements et le fait qu'ils ne devraient pas être communiqués au demandeur ou à son avocat parce que la communication porterait atteinte à la sécurité nationale ou à la sécurité d'autrui. (2) The information shall be returned to counsel representing the Solicitor General and shall not be considered by the judge in making the determination under paragraph 83.05(6)(d), if (a) the judge determines that the information is not relevant; (b) the judge determines that the information is relevant but should be summarized in the statement to be provided under paragraph 83.05(6)(b); or (c) the Solicitor General withdraws the application. (2) Ces renseignements sont renvoyés à l'avocat du solliciteur général et ne peuvent servir de fondement à la décision rendue au titre de l'alinéa 83.05(6)d) dans les cas suivants_: a) le juge décide qu'ils ne sont pas pertinents; b) le juge décide qu'ils sont pertinents, mais qu'ils devraient faire partie du résumé à fournir au titre de l'alinéa 83.05(6)b); c) le solliciteur général retire la demande. (3) If the judge decides that the information is relevant but that its disclosure would injure national security or endanger the safety of persons, the information shall not be disclosed in the statement mentioned in paragraph 83.05(6)(b), but the judge may base the determination under paragraph 83.05(6)(d) on it. (3) Si le juge décide que ces renseignements sont pertinents, mais que leur communication au titre de l'alinéa 83.05(6)b) porterait atteinte à la sécurité nationale ou à la sécurité d'autrui, il les exclut du résumé, mais peut s'en servir comme fondement de la décision qu'il rend au titre de l'alinéa 83.05(6)d). Access to Information Act 13. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information that was obtained in confidence from (a) the government of a foreign state or an institution thereof; (b) an international organization of states or an institution thereof; ... 13. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), le responsable d'une institution fédérale est tenu de refuser la communication de documents contenant des renseignements obtenus à titre confidentiel_: a) des gouvernements des États étrangers ou de leurs organismes; b) des organisations internationales d'États ou de leurs organismes; ... 15. (1) The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the conduct of international affairs, the defence of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada or the detection, prevention or suppression of subversive or hostile activities ... 15. (1) Le responsable d'une institution fédérale peut refuser la communication de documents contenant des renseignements dont la divulgation risquerait vraisemblablement de porter préjudice à la conduite des affaires internationales, à la défense du Canada ou d'États alliés ou associés avec le Canada ou à la détection, à la prévention ou à la répression d'activités hostiles ou subversives ... 52. (1) An application under section 41 or 42 relating to a record or a part of a record that the head of a government institution has refused to disclose by reason of paragraph 13(1)(a) or (b) or section 15 shall be heard and determined by the Chief Justice of the Federal Court or by any other judge of that Court that the Chief Justice may designate to hear those applications. 52. (1) Les recours visés aux articles 41 ou 42 et portant sur les cas où le refus de donner communication totale ou partielle du document en litige s'appuyait sur les alinéas 13(1)a) ou b) ou sur l'article 15 sont exercés devant le juge en chef de la Cour fédérale ou tout autre juge de cette Cour qu'il charge de leur audition. (2) An application referred to in subsection (1) or an appeal brought in respect of such application shall (a) be heard in camera; and (b) on the request of the head of the government institution concerned, be heard and determined in the National Capital Region described in the schedule to the National Capital Act. (2) Les recours visés au paragraphe (1) font, en premier ressort ou en appel, l'objet d'une audition à huis clos; celle-ci a lieu dans la région de la capitale nationale définie à l'annexe de la Loi sur la capitale nationale si le responsable de l'institution fédérale concernée le demande. (3) During the hearing of an application referred to in subsection (1) or an appeal brought in respect of such application, the head of the government institution concerned shall, on the request of the head of the institution, be given the opportunity to make representations ex parte. (3) Le responsable de l'institution fédérale concernée a, au cours des auditions, en première instance ou en appel et sur demande, le droit de présenter des arguments en l'absence d'une autre partie. Privacy Act 19. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any personal information requested under subsection 12(1) that was obtained in confidence from (a) the government of a foreign state or an institution thereof; (b) an international organization of states or an institution thereof; ... 19. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), le responsable d'une institution fédérale est tenu de refuser la communication des renseignements personnels demandés en vertu du paragraphe 12(1) qui ont été obtenus à titre confidentiel_: a) des gouvernements des États étrangers ou de leurs organismes; b) des organisations internationales d'États ou de leurs organismes; 21. The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any personal information requested under subsection 12(1) the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the conduct of international affairs, the defence of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada, as defined in subsection 15(2) of the Access to Information Act, or the efforts of Canada toward detecting, preventing or suppressing subversive or hostile activities, as defined in subsection 15(2) of the Access to Information Act, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, any such information listed in paragraphs 15(1)(a) to (i) of the Access to Information Act. 21. Le responsable d'une institution fédérale peut refuser la communication des renseignements personnels demandés en vertu du paragraphe 12(1) dont la divulgation risquerait vraisemblablement de porter préjudice à la conduite des affaires internationales, à la défense du Canada ou d'États alliés ou associés avec le Canada, au sens du paragraphe 15(2) de la Loi sur l'accès à l'information, ou à ses efforts de détection, de prévention ou de répression d'activités hostiles ou subversives, au sens du paragraphe 15(2) de la même loi, notamment les renseignements visés à ses alinéas 15(1)a) à i). 51. (1) Any application under section 41 or 42 relating to personal information that the head of a government institution has refused to disclose by reason of paragraph 19(1)(a) or (b) or section 21, and any application under section 43 in respect of a file contained in a personal information bank designated as an exempt bank under section 18 to contain files all of which consist predominantly of personal information described in section 21, shall be heard and determined by the Chief Justice of the Federal Court or by any other judge of the Court that the Chief Justice may designate to hear the applications. 51. (1) Les recours visés aux articles 41 ou 42 et portant sur les cas où le refus de donner communication de renseignements personnels est lié aux alinéas 19(1)a) ou b) ou à l'article 21 et sur les cas concernant la présence des dossiers dans chacun desquels dominent des renseignements visés à l'article 21 dans des fichiers inconsultables classés comme tels en vertu de l'article 18 sont exercés devant le juge en chef de la Cour fédérale ou tout autre juge de cette Cour qu'il charge de leur audition. (2) An application referred to in subsection (1) or an appeal brought in respect of such application shall (a) be heard in camera; and (b) on the request of the head of the government institution concerned, be heard and determined in the National Capital Region described in the schedule to the National Capital Act. (2) Les recours visés au paragraphe (1) font, en premier ressort ou en appel, l'objet d'une audition à huis clos; celle-ci a lieu dans la région de la capitale nationale définie à l'annexe de la Loi sur la capitale nationale si le responsable de l'institution fédérale concernée le demande. (3) During the hearing of an application referred to in subsection (1) or an appeal brought in respect of such application, the head of the government institution concerned shall, on the request of the head of the institution, be given the opportunity to make representations ex parte. (3) Le responsable de l'institution fédérale concernée a, au cours des auditions en première instance ou en appel et sur demande, le droit de présenter des arguments en l'absence d'une autre partie. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record DOCKET: A-597-03 STYLE OF CAUSE: BACHAN SINGH SOGI Appellant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2004 REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT BY THE COURT: STRAYER J.A. ROTHSTEIN J.A. MALONE J.A. DATED: May 28, 2004 APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Lorne Waldman For the Appellant Mr. Ian Hicks For the Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. Lorne Waldman Waldman and Associates Toronto, Ontario For the Appellant Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent