Harkat v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
The Court held it was bound by its earlier decision in Charkaoui (and Almrei); the appellant did not demonstrate manifest error sufficient to depart from that precedent, therefore sections 78–80 IRPA do not violate s.7 and the appeal is dismissed; the finding of inadmissibility under s.34(1)(c) and 34(1)(f) stands...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2005 FCA 285
- Parties
- Appellant: Mohammed Harkat; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; Solicitor General of Canada; Attorney General for Canada
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 6 September 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Immigration Inadmissibility Appeal (security Certificate) / Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal; Judgment Delivered
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; sections 78–80 IRPA upheld as constitutional; appellant held inadmissible under s.34(1)(c) and s.34(1)(f) IRPA on the stated reasonable grounds.
- Legal Topics
- Inadmissibility, Terrorism, Charter S.7, Special Advocate, Security Certificates, Procedural Fairness
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mohammed Harkat
Appellant
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; Solicitor General of Canada; Attorney General for Canada
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Immigration Inadmissibility Appeal (security Certificate) / Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal; Judgment Delivered
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether sections 78 to 80 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act violate section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- 2 Whether the appellant is inadmissible under section 34(1)(c) and 34(1)(f) IRPA for supporting terrorist activity and membership in a terrorist organization
- 3 Whether this Court should depart from its prior decision in Charkaoui and related authority
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held it was bound by its earlier decision in Charkaoui (and Almrei); the appellant did not demonstrate manifest error sufficient to depart from that precedent, therefore sections 78–80 IRPA do not violate s.7 and the appeal is dismissed; the finding of inadmissibility under s.34(1)(c) and 34(1)(f) stands on the stated reasonable grounds.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; sections 78–80 IRPA upheld as constitutional; appellant held inadmissible under s.34(1)(c) and s.34(1)(f) IRPA on the stated reasonable grounds.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Harkat v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2005-09-06 Neutral citation 2005 FCA 285 File numbers A-144-05 Decision Content Date: 20050906 Docket: A-144-05 Citation: 2005 FCA 285 CORAM: RICHARD C.J. DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. BETWEEN: MOHAMMED HARKAT Appellant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA Respondents Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 6, 2005. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 6, 2005. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: RICHARD C.J. Date: 20050906 Docket: A-144-05 Citation: 2005 FCA 285 CORAM: RICHARD C.J. DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. BETWEEN: MOHAMMED HARKAT Appellant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario on September 6, 2005.) RICHARD C.J. [1] This is an appeal from a decision of Madam Justice Eleanor Dawson, a judge of the Federal Court, in which she found that the appellant was inadmissible to Canada as being a person described in paragraph 34(1)(c) and 34(1)(f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) on the basis that were reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant: (i) has engaged in terrorism by supporting terrorist activity; and (ii) has been or is a member of Bin Laden network which is an organization with the reasonable grounds to believe has engaged or will engage in terrorism. [2] In arriving at this decision Justice Dawson dismissed the appellant's application to have the provisions of sections 78 to 80 of the IRPA declared unconstitutional on the ground that the procedure set out in those sections did not meet the standard of fundamental justice within the meaning of Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [3] In determining that sections 77 to 80 of the IRPA did not violate Section 7 of the Charter, Justice Dawson relied on this Court's decision delivered on December 10, 2004, in Charkaoui v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, [2005] 2 F.C.R., 299. [4] In that judgment, this Court upheld the constitutionality of these provisions of the IRPA. [5] Counsel for the appellant admits that Justice Dawson stated, quite correctly, that she was bound in this matter by the decision of this Court made in Charkaoui upholding the constitutionality of the provisions of the IRPA. [6] The appellant submits that the decision in Charkaoui was in error and that sections 78 to 80 of the IRPA violate Section 7 of the Charter. [7] The constitutionality of sections 78 to 80 of the IRPA, including the need for the appointment of a Special Advocate, have already been decided in this Court's decision in Charkaoui. [8] The appellant has not demonstrated any manifest error which would justify this Court in departing from its decision in Charkaoui and its more recent decision in Almrei v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 F.C.A. 54: [2005] F.C.J. No. 213. [9] While the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal in Charkaoui, on August 25, 2005, this of itself is not a ground for this Court to decide this question anew. [10] Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. "J. Richard" Chief Justice FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE FEDERAL COURT BY DAWSON, J. DATED MARCH 22, 2005 (DES-4-02) DOCKET: A-144-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: Mohammed Harkat -and- Minister of Citizenship and Immigration et al PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: September 6, 2005 REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT : Richard C.J. CONCURRED IN BY: Décary J.A. Létourneau J.A. DATED: September 6, 2005 APPEARANCES: Mr. Paul D. Copeland FOR THE APPELLANT Mr. Donald A. MacIntosh FOR THE RESPONDENT Mr. John Loncar SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Copeland, Duncan FOR THE APPELLANT Toronto, Ontario John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario