Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (Re)

Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (Re)

Section 27 of the CSIS Act mandates that an application for a warrant under Part II be heard in private; the court therefore has no discretion to permit a public hearing of the warrant application itself. Collateral or jurisdictional issues may be public in some cases, but where legal issues are inextricably linked to sensitive factual matters and CSIS methods such that public debate would reveal injurious information (as in this case), those issues must also be dealt with in private.

Citation
2008 FC 300
Parties
Applicant: Canadian Security Intelligence Service; Amicus Curiae: Ronald G. Atkey
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Warrants Under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (section 21) / Case Management; Reasons for Order and Order on Preliminary Issue of Public Versus in Camera Hearing
Outcome
Court ordered that the Section 21 warrant application be heard in private and that the Reasons for Order and Order remain private pending further decision
Legal Topics
Interpretation of CSIS Act S.27, In Camera Hearings, Open Courts Principle and Charter S.2(b), Amicus Curiae Role, Disclosure of Sensitive National Security Information
Source Language
English
National Security Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Procedural Law Privacy Law Interpretation of CSIS Act S.27 In Camera Hearings Open Courts Principle and Charter S.2(b) +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canadian Security Intelligence Service

Applicant

Ronald G. Atkey

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Application for Warrants Under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (section 21) / Case Management; Reasons for Order and Order on Preliminary Issue of Public Versus in Camera Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.27 CSIS Act mandates that warrant applications be heard in private and precludes public debate of the application itself
  2. 2 Whether collateral or jurisdictional issues arising from a warrant application can be heard in public
  3. 3 How to balance the open courts principle and freedom of expression against national security interests and the need to protect CSIS methodologies

Ratio Decidendi

Section 27 of the CSIS Act mandates that an application for a warrant under Part II be heard in private; the court therefore has no discretion to permit a public hearing of the warrant application itself. Collateral or jurisdictional issues may be public in some cases, but where legal issues are inextricably linked to sensitive factual matters and CSIS methods such that public debate would reveal injurious information (as in this case), those issues must also be dealt with in private.

Court Disposition

Court ordered that the Section 21 warrant application be heard in private and that the Reasons for Order and Order remain private pending further decision

Orders

  • The Section 21 Application shall be heard "in private".
  • Pending further decision, the Reasons for Order and Order are to be kept "in private".