Harkat v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

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
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Inadmissibility Terrorism Charter S.7 Special Advocate Security Certificates +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 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. 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. 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.