Harkat (Re)

Harkat (Re)

The motion to adjourn was dismissed because the Ministers were prepared to proceed, ongoing disclosure would be provided as required, the respondent was adequately represented notwithstanding one counsel's likely unavailability, and no real prejudice was shown from hearing the Ministers' evidence at this time; scheduling conflicts alone did not justify adjournment.

Citation
2008 FC 1288
Parties
Applicant: Ministers; Respondent: Mohamed Harkat; Special Advocate: P. Copeland
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Certificate Proceeding / Pre Hearing Motion to Adjourn Ahead of Public Reasonableness Hearing (scheduling)
Outcome
Motion to adjourn dismissed
Legal Topics
Security Certificate, Disclosure Obligations, Reasonableness of Certificate, Adjournment, Release Conditions
Source Language
English
Immigration Law National Security Administrative Law Security Certificate Disclosure Obligations Reasonableness of Certificate Adjournment Release Conditions

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ministers

Applicant

Mohamed Harkat

Respondent

P. Copeland

Special Advocate

Procedural Posture

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Certificate Proceeding / Pre Hearing Motion to Adjourn Ahead of Public Reasonableness Hearing (scheduling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the public hearing should be adjourned pending further disclosure required by Charkaoui #2
  2. 2 Whether the unavailability of one of the respondent's three counsel justifies adjournment
  3. 3 Whether the Ministers may proceed to present secret evidence relevant to reasonableness and dangerousness despite pending disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The motion to adjourn was dismissed because the Ministers were prepared to proceed, ongoing disclosure would be provided as required, the respondent was adequately represented notwithstanding one counsel's likely unavailability, and no real prejudice was shown from hearing the Ministers' evidence at this time; scheduling conflicts alone did not justify adjournment.

Court Disposition

Motion to adjourn dismissed

Orders

  • Motion to adjourn the public hearings scheduled for the week of November 3, 2008 is dismissed