Date: 20061030
Docket: IMM-7498-05
Citation: 2006
FC 1310
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, October 30, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice von Finckenstein
BETWEEN:
ZAHEER
MOHIUDDIN MOHAMMED
Applicant
and
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
Background
[1]
Zaheer Mohiuddin
Mohammed (the “Applicant”) applied for permanent residence in Canada after being granted Convention refugee status. The application was denied on November 4, 2005,
pursuant to section 34(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
S.C. 2001, c. 27 (“IRPA”) based on his membership in the Mohajir Quami
Movement (the “MQM”), an organization that was found to have engaged in acts of
terrorism. The Applicant does not dispute that he was and is a member of the
MQM, but disputes that he or the MQM engaged in acts of terrorism.
[2]
The Applicant was granted leave to
seek judicial review in an Order dated July 27, 2006, by Justice Barnes. The
July 27 order directed the tribunal to send copies of its record to the parties
and to the Registry of the Court by August 17, 2006.
[3]
The tribunal, an Immigration
Officer employed by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, prepared and certified
the Tribunal Record and served the Certified Tribunal Record on the Court and
the parties. The Certified Tribunal Record was accompanied by a cover letter
under the signature of June Levato (“Levato Letter”). The Levato letter
disclosed that the Tribunal was withholding several pages of documents in its
possession on the basis that disclosure of the documents ‘would be injurious to
national security or the safety of any person’.
[4]
The Applicant then made a
motion dated September 6, 2006, to determine whether it was open to the
Respondent to provide an incomplete disclosure of the Tribunal Record without
first seeking the Court’s directions on the matter contrary to Rules 317 and
318 of the Federal Courts Rules, S.O.R./98-106 (“FCR”) or section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act¸ R.S., 1985, c. C-5 (“CEA”).
[5]
Prothonotary Lafrenière ordered the Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) to forward the withheld
portions to the Court under seal. He also ordered the Respondent to bring a
motion for non-disclosure of the portions of the Tribunal Record it seeks to
withhold from the Applicant.
[6]
Consequently, the Respondent has brought this motion for
non-disclosure requesting:
1. A
declaration that the Respondent is not required to disclose the redacted
potions of the Certified Tribunal Record for reasons of national security and
public safety; and
2. A declaration that the Tribunal was permitted to object
to disclosure by serving a written objection.
[7]
On October 11, 2006, Chief Justice Lutfy ordered:
a.
an ex-parte in-camera hearing to be heard
the morning of October 25, 2006, in the absence of counsel for the Applicant;
and
b. a public hearing of the motion of the Respondent in the afternoon of
October 25, 2006, with counsel for both sides being present.
Issue
[8]
At the public hearing
both sides agreed that there is only one issue to be decided, namely:
a. What is the appropriate procedure to be followed to determine
whether part of the Tribunal Record may not be disclosed by reasons of national
security?
Analysis
[9]
Applications for leave
to commence judicial review proceedings in immigration matters are governed by
sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Federal Courts Immigration and Refugee
Protection Rules (“Immigration Rules”) which provide as follows:
|
15. (1) An order granting an
application for leave:
(a) shall specify the language
and the date and place fixed under paragraphs 74(a) and (b) of the Act for
the hearing of the application for judicial review;
(b) shall specify the time limit
within which the tribunal is to send copies of its record required under Rule
17;
(c) shall specify the time
limits within which further materials, if any, including affidavits,
transcripts of cross-examinations, and memoranda of argument are to be served
and filed;
(d) shall specify the time limits
within which cross-examinations, if any, on affidavits are to be completed;
and
(e) may specify any other matter that
the judge considers necessary or expedient for the hearing of the application
for judicial review.
(2) The Registry shall send to the
tribunal a copy of an order granting leave forthwith after it is made.
(3) The tribunal shall be deemed to
have received a copy of the order on the tenth day after it was sent by mail
by the Registry.
|
15. (1) L’ordonnance faisant droit à la
demande d’autorisation :
(a) spécifie la langue ainsi que la
date et le lieu fixés en application des alinéas 74a) et b) de la Loi pour
l’audition de la demande de contrôle judiciaire;
(b) spécifie le délai accordé au
tribunal administratif pour envoyer des copies de son dossier, prévu à la règle
17;
(c) spécifie le délai de signification
et de dépôt d’autres documents, le cas échéant, dont les affidavits, la
transcription des contre-interrogatoires et les mémoires;
(d) spécifie le délai dans lequel les
contre-interrogatoires sur les affidavits, le cas échéant, doivent être
terminés;
(e) peut spécifier toute autre question
que le juge estime nécessaire ou pratique pour l’audition de la demande de
contrôle judiciaire.
(2) Le greffe envoie immédiatement au
tribunal une copie de l’ordonnance faisant droit à la demande d’autorisation.
(3) Le tribunal administratif est
réputé avoir reçu une copie de l’ordonnance le dixième jour après sa mise à
la poste par le greffe.
|
|
16. Where leave is granted, all
documents filed in connection with the application for leave shall be retained
by the Registry for consideration by the judge hearing the application for
judicial review.
|
16. Lorsque la demande d’autorisation
est accueillie, le greffe garde les documents déposés à l’occasion de la
demande, pour que le juge puisse en tenir compte à l’audition de la demande
de contrôle judiciaire.
|
|
17. Upon receipt of an order under Rule
15, a tribunal shall, without delay, prepare a record containing the
following, on consecutively numbered pages and in the following order:
(a) the decision or order in respect of
which the application for judicial review is made and the written reasons
given therefore,
(b) all papers relevant to the matter
that are in the possession or control of the tribunal,
(c) any affidavits, or other documents
filed during any such hearing, and
(d) a transcript, if any, of any oral
testimony given during the hearing, giving rise to the decision or order or
other matter that is the subject of the application for judicial review,
and shall send a copy, duly certified by
an appropriate officer to be correct, to each of the parties and two copies
to the Registry.
|
17. Dès réception de l’ordonnance visée
à la règle 15, le tribunal administratif constitue un dossier composé des pièces
suivantes, disposées dans l’ordre suivant sur des pages numérotées
consécutivement :
(a) la décision, l’ordonnance ou la
mesure visée par la demande de contrôle judiciaire, ainsi que les motifs
écrits y afférents;
(b) tous les documents pertinents qui
sont en la possession ou sous la garde du tribunal administratif,
(c) les affidavits et autres documents
déposés lors de l’audition,
(d) la transcription, s’il y a lieu, de
tout témoignage donné de vive voix à l’audition qui a abouti à la décision, à
l’ordonnance, à la mesure ou à la question visée par la demande de contrôle
judiciaire,
dont il envoie à chacune des parties
une copie certifiée conforme par un fonctionnaire compétent et au greffe deux
copies de ces documents.
|
[10]
It should be noted that
there is no reference to withholding portions of the record for any reason
including reasons of national security as argued in this case.
[11]
Sections 86 and 87 of
the IRPA deal with non-disclosure of materials in immigration matters.
|
86. (1) The Minister may, during an
admissibility hearing, a detention review or an appeal before the Immigration
Appeal Division, make an application for non-disclosure of information.
(2) Section 78 applies to the
determination of the application, with any modifications that the
circumstances require, including that a reference to “judge” be read as a
reference to the applicable Division of the Board.
|
86. (1) Le ministre peut, dans le cadre
de l’appel devant la Section d’appel de l’immigration, du contrôle de la
détention ou de l’enquête demander l’interdiction de la divulgation des
renseignements.
(2) L’article 78 s’applique à l’examen
de la demande, avec les adaptations nécessaires, la mention de juge valant
mention de la section compétente de la Commission.
|
|
87. (1) The Minister may, in the course
of a judicial review, make an application to the judge for the non-disclosure
of any information with respect to information protected under subsection
86(1) or information considered under section 11, 112 or 115.
(2) Section 78, except for the
provisions relating to the obligation to provide a summary and the time limit
referred to in paragraph 78(d), applies to the determination of the
application, with any modifications that the circumstances require
|
87. (1) Le ministre peut, dans le cadre
d’un contrôle judiciaire, demander au juge d’interdire la divulgation de tout
renseignement protégé au titre du paragraphe 86(1) ou pris en compte dans le
cadre des articles 11, 112 ou 115.
(2) L’article 78 s’applique à l’examen
de la demande, avec les adaptations nécessaires, sauf quant à l’obligation de
fournir un résumé et au délai.
|
[12]
As this case concerns an
application for judicial review, section 87 ordinarily would be the applicable
section. However, section 87 is limited to information protected under section
86(1), or information arising under sections 11, 112 or 115. In this instance
the Applicant was accepted as a Convention refugee and made an inland
application for permanent residence. His application in no way involves sections
86(1), 11, 112 or 115 of IRPA. Instead, he was considered inadmissible under
section 34(1)(f) of IRPA.
[13]
The Immigration
Rules incorporate by reference, parts of the Federal Courts Rules.
Section 4 of the Immigration Rules provide:
|
4. (1) Subject to subrule (2), except
to the extent that they are inconsistent with the Act or these Rules, Parts 1
to 3, 6, 7, 10 and 11 and rules 383 to 385 of the Federal Courts Rules apply
to applications for leave, applications for judicial review and appeals.
(2) Rule 133 of the Federal Courts
Rules does not apply to the service of an application for leave or an
application for judicial review.
|
4.(1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2),
la demande d’autorisation, la demande de contrôle judiciaire et l’appel sont
régis par les parties 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10 et 11 et les règles 383 à 385 des Règles
des Cours fédérales, sauf dans le cas où ces dispositions sont incompatibles
avec la Loi ou les présentes règles.
(2) La règle 133 des Règles des Cours
fédérales ne s’applique pas à la signification d’une demande d’autorisation
ou d’une demande de contrôle judiciaire.
|
[14]
Rules 317 and 318 of
the Federal Courts Rules provide for a procedure allowing a tribunal to
object to the disclosure of certain materials. They provide 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) Une partie peut demander que
des documents ou éléments matériels pertinents à la demande qui sont en la
possession de l’office fédéral dont l’ordonnance fait l’objet de la demande
lui soient transmis en signifiant à l’office fédéral et en déposant une
demande de transmission de documents qui indique de façon précise les
documents ou 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.
|
[15]
Unfortunately, Rules
317 and 318 are found in Part 5 of the Federal Courts Rules. Section 4
of the Immigration Rules does not incorporate Part 5 into said Rules.
[16]
Thus, there seems to be
a lacuna in the rules for dealing with sensitive information that a tribunal
does not want to disclose in cases concerning judicial review of immigration
decisions.
[17]
To deal with such a
lacuna, the Federal Courts Rules contain a so called ‘gap rule’ within
Rule 4, which provides:
|
4. On motion,
the Court may provide for any procedural matter not provided for in these
Rules or in an Act of Parliament by analogy to these Rules or by reference to
the practice of the superior court of the province to which the
subject-matter of the proceeding most closely relates.
|
4. En cas de
silence des présentes règles ou des lois fédérales, la Cour peut, sur requête,
déterminer la procédure applicable par analogie avec les présentes règles ou
par renvoi à la pratique de la cour supérieure de la province qui est la plus
pertinente en l’espèce.
|
[18]
It strikes me that Rule
4 is directly applicable to the situation at hand. Here we are dealing with a
situation where the parties have brought a motion asking me to deal with an
issue not covered either in the Immigration Rules or the Federal
Courts Rules.
[19]
Parenthetically,
I would like to note that no one appearing before me on this motion advanced
the proposition that material injurious to national security or the safety of
persons must be disclosed by reason of the lack of procedure for
non-disclosure. Both parties before me only stressed that the decision as to
whether something can be withheld or not should be made by the court and not by
the Respondent alone. I certainly agree with that proposition.
[20]
The closest analogy can
be found in Rules 317 and 318 of the Federal Courts Rules. I shall
therefore, deal with the subject matter of this motion by invoking Rule 4 so as
to allow me to use Rules 317 and 318.
[21]
Rule 318(3) allows for
directions as to the procedure to be followed. The question therefore arises as
to what type of procedure should be invoked.
[22]
The parties are
unanimous that three types of analogous procedures exist that could be invoked:
(a)
s. 38 of the CEA; or
(b)
the procedure set out in s. 86 of IRPA; or
(c)
the procedure set out in s. 87 of IRPA.
[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.
[24]
As between section 86
and section 87, the difference lies in the Applicant’s entitlement to a summary
under section 86 as to the suppressed information, while the same is not
available under section 87.
[25]
The Respondent
advocates following the procedure set out in section 87, while the Applicant
submits that section 86 is more appropriate. The Applicant’s rationale being
that while the Applicant should not know the material that falls under the
national security umbrella, he is entitled to a summary so that he knows at
least the ambit of the information that works against him.
[26]
In this case the
Applicant has been advised that he is not being granted permanent residency, as
he is considered to be inadmissible by virtue of section 34(1)(f) of IRPA, i.e.
being a member of an organization in which there are reasonable grounds to
believe engages or has engaged or will engage in acts of terrorism. The
decision of the CIC officer T. Argyrides, dated November 4, 2005, in the
underlying application for judicial review states:
I have considered the
documentary evidence presented by counsel on record on behalf of Mr. Mohammad (sic),
his admission of his membership with the MQM (Altaf faction) and his support of
the parties’ ideology and principals. It is this officer’s opinion that there
are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Mohammad (sic) is a member of
the MQM Altaf group, an organization that there are reasonable grounds to
believe is or was engaged in terrorist activity.
(Application Record at page 9)
[27]
The Applicant is thus
aware that it is his membership in the MQM that caused the immigration officer
to consider him inadmissible.
[28]
Section 87
refers specifically to judicial review proceedings, while section 86 is more
geared to non-admissibility hearings based on ministerial certificates. It
behoves the court when filling lacuna to stay as close as possible to the
original legislative intent. In this case, Parliament evidently had section 87
in mind when considering non-disclosure in the context of judicial reviews.
Accordingly, it seems to me that section 87 is the more appropriate procedure
to be used under these circumstances.
[29]
In
addition, I would note that a summary of some of the information normally
sought to be withheld (i.e. relating to CSIS procedures, file numbers,
contacts, working relationships and names of CSIS personnel) are extremely
difficult to summarise, would be of no help to the Applicant yet imposes a
considerable burden on the Respondent. Finally, I see that my colleague,
Lemieux J., equally ordered a motion under section 87 in the similar case of Naeem
v. MCI, file number IMM 5395-05 on May 29, 2006.
[30]
This
morning I reviewed in-camera in the absence of Applicant’s counsel, the
materials the Respondent wishes to withhold. I am satisfied that the release of the information
sought to be withheld would be injurious to national security or to the safety
of persons. I, therefore, have authorized the release of the information
subject to the redactions indicated thereon.
[31]
This
application for judicial review shall now proceed on the basis of the Tribunal
Record made of:
(a)
the
portion already furnished to the Applicant, and
(b)
the
remainder redacted as per my order of October 27, 2006.
[32]
Adapting
section 78 to the circumstances of an application for judicial review (as
mandated by section 87(2)), I am of the view that:
- the hearing on the merits should
be conducted in two parts:
- a public
hearing the morning of November 20, 2006, with counsel for both sides
being present, and
- an ex-parte
in-camera hearing to be heard in the afternoon of November 20, 2006, in
the absence of counsel for the Applicant.
.
2.
When
making its decision on the merits in the judicial review application the court
will consider both:
§
the
publicly available Tribunal Record; and
§
the
information in the redacted portions of the Tribunal Record, available at the
in-camera hearing, to the extent, if any, that pertains to the Applicant.
[33]
Finally
this matter should have come before the court by way of motion of the Respondent
urging the court to adopt the procedure spelled out above. It is hoped that this
will happen in future cases. Given that the Applicant had to bring this matter
to the attention of this court, an order for costs of this motion in favour of
the Applicant will issue.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1.
The motion
for non-disclosure of part of the Tribunal Record is granted. The Respondent
shall file with the court and serve the Applicant with the redacted version of
the Tribunal Record as attached to my order of October 27, 2006.
2.
The
hearing of the application on the merits of this case on November 20, 2006,
will take place in two parts:
§
a public hearing the
morning of November 20, 2006, with counsel for both sides being present, and
§
an ex-parte
in-camera hearing to be heard in the afternoon of November 20, 2006, in the
absence of counsel for the Applicant.
3. The Applicant shall have his costs in this
motion.
“Konrad
W. von Finckenstein”
Email this Content