Slahi v. Canada (Justice)

Slahi v. Canada (Justice)

The Charter does not impose a disclosure obligation here because the applicants, as non‑Canadian nationals detained abroad, failed to establish the requisite nexus to engage s.7 extraterritorially even though Canadian officials interviewed them in Guantanamo; therefore the claimed s.7 right and s.24(1) remedy do not apply and the applications are dismissed.

Citation
2009 FC 160
Parties
Applicant: Mohamedou Ould Slahi; Applicant: Ahcene Zemiri; Respondents: The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada; The Minister of Foreign Affairs; The Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service; The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (charter Disclosure Request) / Judgment (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Applications dismissed without costs.
Legal Topics
Charter S.7, Section 24(1) Remedy, Extraterritorial Application of the Charter, Disclosure, Habeas Corpus, Sovereignty and Judicial Comity
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law International Law Criminal Procedure National Security Charter S.7 Section 24(1) Remedy Extraterritorial Application of the Charter +3 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamedou Ould Slahi

Applicant

Ahcene Zemiri

Applicant

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada; The Minister of Foreign Affairs; The Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service; The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (charter Disclosure Request) / Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants seeking disclosure for non‑prosecutorial U.S. habeas corpus proceedings are barred from relief
  2. 2 Whether availability of U.S. procedural rules and discovery defeats Canadian disclosure obligation
  3. 3 Whether non‑Canadian applicants can assert s.7 Charter rights extraterritorially

Ratio Decidendi

The Charter does not impose a disclosure obligation here because the applicants, as non‑Canadian nationals detained abroad, failed to establish the requisite nexus to engage s.7 extraterritorially even though Canadian officials interviewed them in Guantanamo; therefore the claimed s.7 right and s.24(1) remedy do not apply and the applications are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed without costs.

Orders

  • Applications dismissed without costs.