Date:
20081127
Docket:
T-973-08
Reference:
2008 FC 1318
[ENGLISH
TRANSLATION]
Ottawa, Ontario,
this 27th day of November 2008
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Orville Frenette
BETWEEN:
HANI AL TELBANI
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT,
INFRASTRUCTURE
AND COMMUNITIES,
TRANSPORT CANADA
Respondent
REASONS
FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
This
proceeding was filed as part of an application for judicial review of a
decision issued on June 4, 2008 by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure
and Communities, adding the applicant’s name to the at-risk persons list, under
the Passenger Protect Program.
[2]
The
applicant also filed a notice raising issues regarding the unconstitutionality
of the Aeronautics Act in relation to the aforementioned ministerial
decision. In that context, the applicant filed a motion to require the
respondents to disclose all of the required information, which they have
refused to disclose, citing section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act,
R.S.C. (1985), c. C-5 (the Act).
[3]
The
applicant, who is originally from Palestine, became a permanent resident in
Canada on January 22, 2004.
[4]
On
June 4, 2008, he went to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport in Montréal for a
flight to Saudi Arabia, when was refused access to the aircraft because he had
been placed by the respondent Minister on an at-risk persons list for airline
security.
[5]
Through
his counsel, he submitted a request for reconsideration of that decision, which
was dismissed.
[6]
On
June 19, 2008, he filed an application for judicial review of the Minister’s
decision.
[7]
From
the perspective of this proceeding, he is renewing his request to obtain all
information regarding the ministerial decision, citing section 317 of the Federal
Court Rules, SOR/98-106.
[8]
The
respondents voluntarily provided counsel for the applicant with certain
documents, but refused to provide others, citing confidentiality under
subsection 38.01(1) of the Act.
[9]
On
July 17, 2008, the Honourable Chief Justice Lutfy issued an order under rules
8, 55 and 383 of the Federal Court Rules assigning administrative
management of this case to Prothonotary Richard Morneau, [translation] “assigned
as judge responsible for the management of this proceeding.”
[10]
On
September 17, 2008, de Montigny J. issued a decision dismissing the motion to
obtain a confidentiality and non-disclosure order and a publication ban.
[11]
In
this motion, the applicant is asking that the respondents be ordered to produce
and disclose to the applicant the entire file from the federal office regarding
the applicant, subject to his other actions.
[12]
The
respondents oppose the motion as presented on three main grounds: (a) the
provisions of the Act create a particular and precise system for the disclosure
of potentially prejudicial information; (b) a special procedure is set out in
the Act for determining those elements, and that procedure has precedence over
the one set out in rules 317 and 318 of the Federal Court Rules; and
(c), paragraph 38.02(1)(a) of the Act prohibits disclosure, in
connection with a proceeding, of information about which notice is given under
any of subsections 38.01(1) to (4).
[13]
Before
analyzing the issues raised in this proceeding, I feel that it is useful to
cite the relevant paragraphs of section 38 of the Act and to briefly note the
particular nature of this section, its procedure and its purpose.
|
38. The
following definitions apply in this section and in sections 38.01 to 38.15.
“judge”
«juge »
“judge”
means the Chief Justice of the Federal Court or a judge of that Court
designated by the Chief Justice to conduct hearings under section 38.04.
“participant”
«participant »
“participant”
means a person who, in connection with a proceeding, is required to disclose,
or expects to disclose or cause the disclosure of, information.
“potentially
injurious information”
«renseignements potentiellement préjudiciables »
“potentially
injurious information” means information of a type that, if it were disclosed
to the public, could injure international relations or national defence or
national security.
“proceeding”
«instance »
“proceeding”
means a proceeding before a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel
the production of information.
“prosecutor”
«poursuivant »
“prosecutor”
means an agent of the Attorney General of Canada or of the Attorney General
of a province, the Director of Military Prosecutions under the National
Defence Act or an individual who acts as a prosecutor in a proceeding.
“sensitive
information”
«renseignements sensibles »
“sensitive
information” means information relating to international relations or
national defence or national security that is in the possession of the
Government of Canada, whether originating from inside or outside Canada, and
is of a type that the Government of Canada is taking measures to safeguard.
38.01 (1) Every
participant who, in connection with a proceeding, is required to disclose, or
expects to disclose or cause the disclosure of, information that the
participant believes is sensitive information or potentially injurious
information shall, as soon as possible, notify the Attorney General of Canada
in writing of the possibility of the disclosure, and of the nature, date and
place of the proceeding.
(2) Every
participant who believes that sensitive information or potentially injurious
information is about to be disclosed, whether by the participant or another
person, in the course of a proceeding shall raise the matter with the person
presiding at the proceeding and notify the Attorney General of Canada in
writing of the matter as soon as possible, whether or not notice has been
given under subsection (1). In such circumstances, the person presiding at
the proceeding shall ensure that the information is not disclosed other than
in accordance with this Act.
(3)
An official, other than a participant, who believes that sensitive
information or potentially injurious information may be disclosed in
connection with a proceeding may notify the Attorney General of Canada in
writing of the possibility of the disclosure, and of the nature, date and
place of the proceeding.
(4)
An official, other than a participant, who believes that sensitive
information or potentially injurious information is about to be disclosed in
the course of a proceeding may raise the matter with the person presiding at
the proceeding. If the official raises the matter, he or she shall notify the
Attorney General of Canada in writing of the matter as soon as possible,
whether or not notice has been given under subsection (3), and the person
presiding at the proceeding shall ensure that the information is not
disclosed other than in accordance with this Act.
(5) In the
case of a proceeding under Part III of the National Defence Act,
notice under any of subsections (1) to (4) shall be given to both the
Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of National Defence.
(6) This
section does not apply when
(a) the
information is disclosed by a person to their solicitor in connection with a
proceeding, if the information is relevant to that proceeding;
(b) the
information is disclosed to enable the Attorney General of Canada, the
Minister of National Defence, a judge or a court hearing an appeal from, or a
review of, an order of the judge to discharge their responsibilities under
section 38, this section and sections 38.02 to 38.13, 38.15 and 38.16;
(c)
disclosure of the information is authorized by the government institution in
which or for which the information was produced or, if the information was
not produced in or for a government institution, the government institution
in which it was first received; or
(d) the
information is disclosed to an entity and, where applicable, for a purpose
listed in the schedule.
(7)
Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a participant if a government
institution referred to in paragraph (6)(c) advises
the participant that it is not necessary, in order to prevent disclosure of
the information referred to in that paragraph, to give notice to the Attorney
General of Canada under subsection (1) or to raise the matter with the person
presiding under subsection (2).
[.
. .]
38.02
(1) Subject to subsection 38.01(6), no person shall disclose in connection
with a proceeding
(a)
information about which notice is given under any of subsections 38.01(1) to
(4);
(b) the
fact that notice is given to the Attorney General of Canada under any of
subsections 38.01(1) to (4), or to the Attorney General of Canada and the
Minister of National Defence under subsection 38.01(5);
(c) the
fact that an application is made to the Federal Court under section 38.04 or
that an appeal or review of an order made under any of subsections 38.06(1)
to (3) in connection with the application is instituted; or
(d) the
fact that an agreement is entered into under section 38.031 or subsection
38.04(6).
[. . .]
38.04
(1) The Attorney General of Canada may, at any time and in any circumstances,
apply to the Federal Court for an order with respect to the disclosure of
information about which notice was given under any of subsections 38.01(1) to
(4).
[. . .]
(4) An
application under this section is confidential. Subject to section 38.12, the
Chief Administrator of the Courts Administration Service may take any measure
that he or she considers appropriate to protect the confidentiality of the application
and the information to which it relates.
[. . .]
38.11 (1)
A hearing under subsection 38.04(5) or an appeal or review of an order made
under any of subsections 38.06(1) to (3) shall be heard in private and, at
the request of either the Attorney General of Canada or, in the case of a
proceeding under Part III of the National Defence Act, the Minister of
National Defence, shall be heard in the National Capital Region, as described
in the schedule to the National Capital Act.
(2) The
judge conducting a hearing under subsection 38.04(5) or the court hearing an
appeal or review of an order made under any of subsections 38.06(1) to (3)
may give any person who makes representations under paragraph 38.04(5)(d), and
shall give the Attorney General of Canada and, in the case of a proceeding
under Part III of the National Defence Act, the Minister of National
Defence, the opportunity to make representations ex parte.
38.12
(1) The judge conducting a hearing under subsection 38.04(5) or the court
hearing an appeal or review of an order made under any of subsections
38.06(1) to (3) may make any order that the judge or the court considers
appropriate in the circumstances to protect the confidentiality of the
information to which the hearing, appeal or review relates.
(2) The
court records relating to the hearing, appeal or review are confidential. The
judge or the court may order that the records be sealed and kept in a
location to which the public has no access.
|
38. Les
définitions qui suivent s’appliquent au présent article et aux articles 38.01
à 38.15.
«instance
»
“proceeding”
«instance
» Procédure devant un tribunal, un organisme ou une personne ayant le pouvoir
de contraindre la production de renseignements.
«juge
»
“judge”
«juge
» Le juge en chef de la Cour fédérale ou le juge de ce tribunal désigné par
le juge en chef pour statuer sur les questions dont est saisi le tribunal en
application de l’article 38.04.
«participant
»
“participant”
«participant
» Personne qui, dans le cadre d’une instance, est tenue de divulguer ou
prévoit de divulguer ou de faire divulguer des renseignements.
«poursuivant
»
“prosecutor”
«poursuivant
» Représentant du procureur général du Canada ou du procureur général d’une
province, particulier qui agit à titre de poursuivant dans le cadre d’une
instance ou le directeur des poursuites militaires, au sens de la Loi sur
la défense nationale.
«renseignements
potentiellement préjudiciables »
“potentially injurious information”
«renseignements
potentiellement préjudiciables » Les renseignements qui, s’ils sont
divulgués, sont susceptibles de porter préjudice aux relations
internationales ou à la défense ou à la sécurité nationales.
«renseignements
sensibles »
“sensitive information”
«renseignements
sensibles » Les renseignements, en provenance du Canada ou de l’étranger, qui
concernent les affaires internationales ou la défense ou la sécurité
nationales, qui se trouvent en la possession du gouvernement du Canada et qui
sont du type des
renseignements à
l’égard desquels celui-ci prend des mesures de protection.
38.01
(1) Tout participant qui, dans le cadre d’une instance, est tenu de
divulguer ou prévoit de divulguer ou de faire divulguer des renseignements
dont il croit qu’il s’agit de renseignements sensibles ou de renseignements
potentiellement préjudiciables est tenu d’aviser par écrit, dès que possible,
le procureur général du Canada de la possibilité de divulgation et de
préciser dans l’avis la nature, la date et le lieu de l’instance.
(2) Tout
participant qui croit que des renseignements sensibles ou des renseignements
potentiellement préjudiciables sont sur le point d’être divulgués par lui ou
par une autre personne au cours d’une instance est tenu de soulever la
question devant la personne qui préside l’instance et d’aviser par écrit le
procureur général du Canada de la question dès que possible, que ces
renseignements aient fait ou non l’objet de l’avis prévu au paragraphe (1).
Le cas échéant, la personne qui préside l’instance veille à ce que les
renseignements ne soient pas divulgués, sauf en conformité avec la présente
loi.
(3) Le
fonctionnaire — à l’exclusion d’un participant — qui croit que peuvent être
divulgués dans le cadre d’une instance des renseignements sensibles ou des
renseignements potentiellement préjudiciables peut aviser par écrit le
procureur général du Canada de la possibilité de divulgation; le cas échéant,
l’avis précise la nature, la date et le lieu de l’instance.
(4) Le
fonctionnaire — à l’exclusion d’un participant — qui croit que des
renseignements sensibles ou des renseignements potentiellement préjudiciables
sont sur le point d’être divulgués au cours d’une instance peut soulever la
question devant la personne qui préside l’instance; le cas échéant, il est
tenu d’aviser par écrit le procureur général du Canada de la question dès que
possible, que ces renseignements aient fait ou non l’objet de l’avis prévu au
paragraphe (3) et la personne qui préside l’instance veille à ce que les
renseignements ne soient pas divulgués, sauf en conformité avec la présente
loi.
(5) Dans le
cas d’une instance engagée sous le régime de la partie III de la Loi sur
la défense nationale, les avis prévus à l’un des paragraphes (1) à (4)
sont donnés à la fois au procureur général du Canada et au ministre de la
Défense nationale.
(6) Le
présent article ne s’applique pas :
a) à la
communication de renseignements par une personne à son avocat dans le cadre
d’une instance, si ceux-ci concernent l’instance;
b) aux
renseignements communiqués dans le cadre de l’exercice des attributions du
procureur général du Canada, du ministre de la Défense nationale, du juge ou
d’un tribunal d’appel ou d’examen au titre de l’article 38, du présent
article, des articles 38.02 à 38.13 ou des articles 38.15 ou 38.16;
c) aux
renseignements dont la divulgation est autorisée par l’institution fédérale
qui les a produits ou pour laquelle ils ont été produits ou, dans le cas où
ils n’ont pas été produits par ou pour une institution fédérale, par la
première institution fédérale à les avoir reçus;
d) aux
renseignements divulgués auprès de toute entité mentionnée à l’annexe et, le
cas échéant, à une application figurant en regard d’une telle entité.
(7) Les
paragraphes (1) et (2) ne s’appliquent pas au participant si une institution
gouvernementale visée à l’alinéa (6)c)
l’informe qu’il n’est pas nécessaire, afin d’éviter la divulgation des
renseignements visés à cet alinéa, de donner un avis au procureur général du
Canada au titre du paragraphe (1) ou de soulever la question devant la
personne présidant une instance au titre du paragraphe (2).
[.
. .]
38.02
(1) Sous réserve du paragraphe 38.01(6), nul ne peut divulguer, dans le cadre
d’une instance :
a) les
renseignements qui font l’objet d’un avis donné au titre de l’un des
paragraphes 38.01(1) à (4);
b) le fait
qu’un avis est donné au procureur général du Canada au titre de l’un des
paragraphes 38.01(1) à (4), ou à ce dernier et au ministre de la Défense
nationale au titre du paragraphe 38.01(5);
c) le fait
qu’une demande a été présentée à la Cour fédérale au titre de l’article
38.04, qu’il a été interjeté appel d’une ordonnance rendue au titre de l’un
des paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3) relativement à une telle demande ou qu’une
telle ordonnance a été renvoyée pour examen;
d) le fait
qu’un accord a été conclu au titre de l’article 38.031 ou du paragraphe
38.04(6).
[. . .]
38.04 (1) Le
procureur général du Canada peut, à tout moment et en toutes circonstances,
demander à la Cour fédérale de rendre une ordonnance portant sur la divul-
gation de renseignements à l’égard desquels il a reçu un avis au titre de
l’un des paragraphes 38.01(1) à (4).
[. . .]
(4)
Toute demande présentée en application du présent article est confidentielle.
Sous réserve de l’article 38.12, l’administrateur en chef du Service
administratif des tribunaux peut prendre les mesures qu’il estime indiquées
en vue d’assurer la confidentialité de la demande et des renseignements sur
lesquels elle porte.
[. . .]
38.11
(1) Les audiences prévues au paragraphe 38.04(5) et l’audition de l’appel ou
de l’examen d’une ordonnance rendue en application de l’un des paragraphes
38.06(1) à (3) sont tenues à huis clos et, à la demande soit du procureur
général du Canada, soit du ministre de la Défense nationale dans le cas des
instances engagées sous le régime de la partie III de la Loi sur la
défense nationale, elles ont lieu dans la région de la capitale nationale
définie à l’annexe de la Loi sur la capitale nationale.
(2)
Le juge saisi d’une affaire au titre du paragraphe 38.04(5) ou le tribunal
saisi de l’appel ou de l’examen d’une ordonnance rendue en application de
l’un des paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3) donne au procureur général du Canada — et
au ministre de la Défense nationale dans le cas d’une instance engagée sous
le régime de la partie III de la Loi sur la défense nationale — la
possibilité de présenter ses observations en l’absence d’autres parties. Il
peut en faire de même pour les personnes qu’il entend en application de
l’alinéa 38.04(5)d).
38.12
(1) Le juge saisi d’une affaire au titre du paragraphe 38.04(5) ou le
tribunal saisi de l’appel ou de l’examen d’une ordonnance rendue en
application de l’un des paragraphes 38.06(1) à (3) peut rendre toute
ordonnance qu’il estime indiquée en l’espèce en vue de protéger la
confidentialité des renseignements sur lesquels porte l’audience, l’appel ou
l’examen.
(2) Le
dossier ayant trait à l’audience, à l’appel ou à l’examen est confidentiel.
Le juge ou le tribunal saisi peut ordonner qu’il soit placé sous scellé et
gardé dans un lieu interdit au public.
|
[14]
Lutfy
C.J. analyzed the purpose, provisions and procedure under section 38 of the Act
regarding the disclosure of information related to national security in Toronto
Star Newspapers Ltd. and Kassim Mohamed v. Canada (Her Majesty the Queen in
Right of Canada), [2007] 4 F.C.R. 434.
[15]
In
that case, the applicant Mohamed had initiated an action for damages and other
remedies against the respondent on the grounds that the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service had disclosed personal
information to foreign security agencies and that, following that disclosure,
Egyptian authorities had detained him for two weeks.
[16]
The
Attorney General of Canada served a notice under section 38 of the Act
objecting to the disclosure of “secret information” in a separate proceeding,
DES‑1‑06. Lutfy C.J. summarized the provisions applicable to such a
proceeding in paragraphs 29 to 38 of his decision, above.
[17]
The
debate was basically whether section 38 of the Act infringed on paragraph 2(b)
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He found that, in
response to the constitutional issues raised, subsections 38.04(4), 38.11(1)
and 38.12(2) of the Act infringed on paragraph 2(b) of the Charter
and that those infringements were not justified within the meaning of The
Queen v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103.
[18]
Lutfy
C.J. held that the passages “an application under this section is confidential”
in subsection 38.04(4) , “shall be heard in private” in section 38.11, and “the
Court records relating to the hearing, appeal or review are confidential” in
subsection 38.12(2) only applied to the ex parte representations
provided for in subsections 38.11(1) and (2) of the Act.
[19]
Here,
the applicant is seeking to obtain his “complete” file from the federal office
to find out the grounds that justified him being added to the at-risk persons
list, which led to the denied boarding on an aircraft on June 4, 2008.
[20]
The
respondent produced certain information in part from its file, but refused to
provide everything for security reasons. It cited the notice issued under
subsection 38.01(1) of the Act and argued that this proceeding should be
suspended and a separate proceeding begun to rule on the disclosure of the
desired information.
[21]
The
applicant cited the judicial interpretation of section 38 of the Act and rules
317 and 318 of the Federal Court Rules, which read as follows:
|
317. (1) A party may request
material relevant to an application that is in the possession of a tribunal
whose order is the subject of the application and not in the possession of
the party by serving on the tribunal and filing a written request,
identifying the material requested.
(2)
An applicant may include a request under subsection (1) in its notice of
application.
(3)
If an applicant does not include a request under subsection (1) in its notice
of application, the applicant shall serve the request on the other parties.
|
317.
(1)
Toute partie peut demander la transmission des documents ou des éléments
matériels pertinents quant à la demande, qu’elle n’a pas mais qui sont en la
possession de l’office fédéral dont l’ordonnance fait l’objet de la demande,
en signifiant à l’office une requête à cet effet puis en la déposant. La
requête précise les documents ou les éléments matériels demandés.
(2)
Un demandeur peut inclure sa demande de transmission de documents dans son
avis de demande.
(3)
Si le demandeur n’inclut pas sa demande de transmission de documents dans son
avis de demande, il est tenu de signifier cette demande aux autres parties.
|
|
318. (1) Within 20 days
after service of a request under rule 317, the tribunal shall transmit
(a)a certified copy of
the requested material to the Registry and to the party making the request;
or
(b)where the material
cannot be reproduced, the original material to the Registry.
(2)
Where a tribunal or party objects to a request under rule 317, the tribunal
or the party shall inform all parties and the Administrator, in writing, of
the reasons for the objection.
(3)
The Court may give directions to the parties and to a tribunal as to the
procedure for making submissions with respect to an objection under
subsection (2).
(4)
The Court may, after hearing submissions with respect to an objection under subsection
(2), order that a certified copy, or the original, of all or part of the
material requested be forwarded to the Registry.
|
318. (1) Dans les 20
jours suivant la signification de la demande de transmission visée à la règle
317, l’office fédéral transmet :
a) au greffe et à la
partie qui en a fait la demande une copie certifiée conforme des documents en
cause;
b) au greffe les
documents qui ne se prêtent pas à la reproduction et les éléments matériels
en cause.
(2)
Si l’office fédéral ou une partie s’opposent à la demande de transmission,
ils informent par écrit toutes les parties et l’administrateur des motifs de
leur opposition.
(3)
La Cour peut donner aux parties et à l’office fédéral des directives sur la
façon de procéder pour présenter des observations au sujet d’une opposition à
la demande de transmission.
(4)
La Cour peut, après avoir entendu les observations sur l’opposition, ordonner
qu’une copie certifiée conforme ou l’original des documents ou que les
éléments matériels soient transmis, en totalité ou en partie, au greffe.
|
[22]
The
respondent is correct in this regard, as the Henrie v. Canada (Security
Intelligence Review Committee et al.), [1989] 2 F.C. 229, affirmed on
appeal ([1992] F.C.J. No. 100 (QL)), held that it would be inappropriate to use
rules 317 and 318 to circumvent the provisions of the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service Act, S.C. 1984, c. 21, regarding the protection of
international relations and national defence and security.
[23]
The
Aeronautics Act, R.S.C. (1985), c. A-2, at paragraph 4.71(2)c)
states:
|
4.71
(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), regulations may be
made under that subsection
[.
. .]
(c)
respecting the screening of persons entering or inside an aircraft or an
aerodrome of other aviation facility;
|
4.71 (2) Les règlements visés
au paragraphe (1) peuvent notamment :
[.
. .]
c) régir le contrôle
des personnes qui pénètrent ou se trouvent dans un aéronef, un aérodrome ou
d’autres installations aéronautiques;
|
[24]
Section
3 of the Identity Screening Regulations, SOR/2007-82, states :
|
3.
(1) An air carrier shall, before issuing a boarding pass to any person who
appears to be 12 years of age or older, screen the person by comparing his or
her name with the names of persons specified to the air carrier by the
Minister under paragraph 4.81(1)(b) of the Act.
(2)
If the name of the person is the same as that of a person specified to the
air carrier, the air carrier shall ask the person for one piece of
government-issued photo identification that shows his or her name, date of
birth and gender or for two pieces of government-issued identification at
least one of which shows his or her name, date of birth and gender.
(3)
If the name, date of birth and gender on the identification are the same as
those of a person specified to the air carrier, the air carrier shall
immediately so inform the Minister.
|
3. (1) Le transporteur
aérien effectue le contrôle de toute personne qui semble être âgée de 12 ans
ou plus en comparant son nom avec ceux des personnes qui lui sont précisées
par le ministre en application de l’alinéa 4.81(1)b) de la Loi avant
de lui remettre une carte d’embarquement.
(2)
Si le nom de la personne correspond à celui d’une personne qui lui est
précisée, le transporteur aérien demande à celle-ci une pièce d’identité avec
photo délivrée par un gouvernement qui comporte ses nom, date de naissance et
sexe ou deux pièces d’identité délivrées par un gouvernement dont au moins
une comporte ses nom, date de naissance et sexe.
(3)
Si les nom, date de naissance et sexe qui figurent sur la pièce d’identité
correspondent à ceux d’une personne qui lui est précisée, le transporteur
aérien en informe immédiatement le ministre.
|
[25]
Citing
jurisprudence, the applicant argues that he is entitled to obtain the desired
information (Baker v. Canada, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; Canada (Attorney
General) v. Ribic, [2005] 1 F.C.R. 33, at paras 17 to 22; Khadr v.
Minister of Foreign Affairs, 2005 FC 135, at para 17; Charkaoui v.
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 350 and Charkaoui
v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2008 SCC 38, 376 N.R.
154, at para 56).
[26]
The
applicant argues that the respondent’s claim that there must be a separate case
to decide the issues raised by the confidentiality of the desired information
can be dealt with in this case, by way of this motion, in obiter in the case
without having a completely separate or new case.
[27]
The
respondent submits that the Court does not have the jurisdiction to decide this
motion and that it must proceed by way of the notice set out in section
38.04(1) of the Act.
[28]
The
applicant replied that the respondent did not respond to the request or send
the notice and that the motion is sufficient to open the debate. He argues that
all these issues are decided by a judge of the Federal Court and that the Court
has sufficient jurisdiction to decide the subject of the motion. In his view,
the fact that the proceeding in Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd., above, was
initiated by the Attorney General of Canada does not mean that it is mandatory,
that it can only be initiated by the Attorney General, and that a party to the
litigation cannot do so of his or her own initiative.
[29]
Section
38 of the Act creates a special system and a procedure for determining the
disclosure of confidential information, by means of notices that trigger the
proceeding before the Federal Court.
[30]
The
applicant argues that his motion is well-founded in law in terms of the
procedural vehicle supported in Mohammed v. Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration. That case was related to a motion for disclosure of evidence
opposed on the grounds of national security, in an application for judicial
review of an immigration officer’s refusal of an application for permanent
residency in Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection act,
S.C. 2001, c. 27. The respondent opposed that motion in a written objection on
the grounds of national security. On October 11, 2006 (IMM-7498-05), Lutfy C.J.
ordered: (a) that an ex parte hearing be held in private, and (b) that a
public hearing of the respondent’s motion be held in the presence of counsel
for the parties.
[31]
Von
Finckenstein J. allowed the motion and ordered a “hearing” for the motion in
two stages: a public hearing and an “ex-parte” hearing (Mohammed v.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, [2007] 4 F.C.R. 300).
To justify his decision, he explained that the issue was to determine which
proceeding would apply, the one set out in section 38 of the Act or the one set
out in sections 86 and 87 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
He stated the following at paragraph 23 of his decision:
[23] The parties also
agree that the procedure in section 38 of the CEA is unduly complicated, would
require a separate application and would involve another party, the Attorney
General of Canada. I agree and, in the spirit of dealing with applications for
judicial review expeditiously, I discard the CEA option.
[32]
That
view gave rise to another judicial theory that, in such situations, requires
the procedural recourse set out in section 38 of the Act (see Henrie, above).
[33]
In Henrie, Addy J. of the Federal Court
was the judge assigned to decide the objection to disclosure of confidential
evidence on the grounds of national security, as certified by the Minister. He
dismissed the application under Rule 1402 of the Federal Court Rules,
C.R.C., c. 663, on the grounds that, inter alia, the issue had to be
decided by the procedure set out in subsection 36.2(3) of the Act, as it
existed at that time.
[34]
In
Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd., above, Lutfy C.J. was not required to
determine the procedural issue, as he proceeded following a notice of
non-disclosure by the Attorney General of Canada under section 38 of the Act.
At paragraph 29, the learned Chief Justice wrote:
[29] A section 38
application is to be heard by the Chief Justice of the Federal Court or a judge
of that Court designated by the Chief Justice. This provision has existed since
1982 [s. 36.2].
[35]
Lutfy
C.J. proceeded with the hearing of the case under sections 38 et seq. of
the Act to decide the Charter issue.
[36]
In
Canada (Attorney General) v. Ribic, above, the Federal Court of Appeal
did not directly examine the procedural aspect raised, so it did not raise any
doubt in that regard.
[37]
In
light of the text and purpose of section 38 of the Act and the reasoning of the
second judicial theory interpreting that text, I must agree with that
interpretation. The motion, as presented is therefor not well-founded.
[38]
For
all these reasons, the Court orders that the applicant’s motion, as worded, be
dismissed and orders the suspension of the proceeding to allow a separate
proceeding to be presented and disposed of to determine the disclosure of the
evidence by the Chief Justice of the Federal Court or a judge appointed by the
Chief Justice under section 38 of the Act to hear the case.
ORDER
The applicant’s motion is
dismissed. The Court orders the suspension of the proceeding to allow a
separate proceeding to be presented and disposed of to determine the disclosure
of the evidence by the Chief Justice of the Federal Court or a judge who may be
appointed by the Chief Justice under section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act,
R.S.C. (1985), c. C-5, to hear the case.
“Orville
Frenette”
Email this Content