Jaballah (Re)

Jaballah (Re)

The court held that 'conclusion of the preceding review' is the date of the decision (relying on statutory deeming provisions and construing 'conclusion' as the decision date), therefore six months had not elapsed and the respondent was not entitled to a review at this time; alternatively, even if variation could be considered, the respondent failed to demonstrate a material change in the circumstances that led to the July 13, 2010 order (no evidence of attenuation of the identified security risk), so the application to vary was dismissed.

Citation
2010 FC 870
Parties
Respondent: Mahmoud Es‑Sayyid Jaballah; Ministers/applicants: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Immigration — Security Certificate / Review and Variation of Conditions of Release Under IRPA / Application to Review/vary Conditions of Release; Preliminary Determination on Entitlement to Six‑month Review and Substantive Variation Application Heard (decision)
Outcome
Respondent's application for a review denied on preliminary ground; application to vary conditions of release dismissed.
Legal Topics
Security Certificate, Conditions of Release, Variation of Order, Periodic Review, Interpretation of Statutory Deeming Provisions (s.82.1(2), S.82.2(4))
Source Language
English
Immigration Law National Security Administrative Law Detention and Release Security Certificate Conditions of Release Variation of Order Periodic Review +1 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mahmoud Es‑Sayyid Jaballah

Respondent

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Ministers/applicants

Procedural Posture

Immigration — Security Certificate / Review and Variation of Conditions of Release Under IRPA / Application to Review/vary Conditions of Release; Preliminary Determination on Entitlement to Six‑month Review and Substantive Variation Application Heard (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent was entitled to a review of conditions under s.82(4) at this time (calculation of six‑month period and meaning of 'conclusion of the preceding review')
  2. 2 Whether a variation of the July 13, 2010 release order under s.82.1(1) is warranted (existence of a material change in circumstances that led to the order)
  3. 3 Whether the evidence adduced demonstrated attenuation of national security risk or material change related to reasons for the order

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that 'conclusion of the preceding review' is the date of the decision (relying on statutory deeming provisions and construing 'conclusion' as the decision date), therefore six months had not elapsed and the respondent was not entitled to a review at this time; alternatively, even if variation could be considered, the respondent failed to demonstrate a material change in the circumstances that led to the July 13, 2010 order (no evidence of attenuation of the identified security risk), so the application to vary was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Respondent's application for a review denied on preliminary ground; application to vary conditions of release dismissed.

Orders

  • Respondent is not entitled to a review of conditions under s.82 at this time because six months have not elapsed since the conclusion of the preceding review (decision date).
  • Application to vary the July 13, 2010 conditions of release under s.82.1(1) is dismissed for failure to show a material change in the circumstances that led to the order.