Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr

Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr

Canadian officials actively participated in a regime that violated international human rights obligations and thereby contributed to Omar Khadr’s ongoing deprivation of liberty and security in breach of s.7; however, because the remedy sought (compelling request for repatriation) intrudes on executive prerogative,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2010 SCC 3
Parties
Appellants: Prime Minister of Canada, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Respondent: Omar Ahmed Khadr; Intervener: Amnesty International (Canadian Section, English Branch); Intervener: Human Rights Watch; University of Toronto Faculty of Law — International Human Rights Program; David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights; Intervener: Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children; Justice for Children and Youth; Intervener: British Columbia Civil Liberties Association; Intervener: Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario); Intervener: Canadian Bar Association; Intervener: Lawyers Without Borders Canada; Barreau du Québec; Groupe d’étude en droits et libertés de la Faculté de droit de l’Université Laval; Intervener: Canadian Civil Liberties Association; Intervener: National Council For the Protection of Canadians Abroad
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Executive Decision Under Charter S.7 / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Federal Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; declaration that Canada breached s.7; remedial relief limited to declaration; no order compelling repatriation; costs awarded to respondent
Legal Topics
Section 7 Charter Rights, Extraterritorial Application of Charter, Royal Prerogative in Foreign Affairs, Remedies Under S.24(1), Repatriation Requests
Source Language
english
Constitutional Law Administrative Law International Law Human Rights Criminal Law Section 7 Charter Rights Extraterritorial Application of Charter Royal Prerogative in Foreign Affairs +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prime Minister of Canada, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Appellants

Omar Ahmed Khadr

Respondent

Amnesty International (Canadian Section, English Branch)

Intervener

Human Rights Watch; University of Toronto Faculty of Law — International Human Rights Program; David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights

Intervener

Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children; Justice for Children and Youth

Intervener

British Columbia Civil Liberties Association

Intervener

Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario)

Intervener

Canadian Bar Association

Intervener

Lawyers Without Borders Canada; Barreau du Québec; Groupe d’étude en droits et libertés de la Faculté de droit de l’Université Laval

Intervener

Canadian Civil Liberties Association

Intervener

National Council For the Protection of Canadians Abroad

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Executive Decision Under Charter S.7 / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Federal Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Charter apply to Canadian officials acting extraterritorially at Guantanamo Bay?
  2. 2 Did Canadian conduct contribute to deprivation of liberty and security of person?
  3. 3 Was any deprivation contrary to principles of fundamental justice?

Ratio Decidendi

Canadian officials actively participated in a regime that violated international human rights obligations and thereby contributed to Omar Khadr’s ongoing deprivation of liberty and security in breach of s.7; however, because the remedy sought (compelling request for repatriation) intrudes on executive prerogative, is factually uncertain and outside the Court’s institutional competence on current foreign relations, the appropriate remedy is a declaratory judgment of the s.7 breach leaving remedial steps to the executive.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; declaration that Canada breached s.7; remedial relief limited to declaration; no order compelling repatriation; costs awarded to respondent

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part
  • Application for judicial review allowed in part