Date: 20061031
Docket: DES-4-01
Citation: 2006 FC 1316
BETWEEN:
MAHMOUD
ES-SAYYID JABALLAH
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.
[1] These
reasons address the issue of the court’s jurisdiction to continue a detention
review under section 83 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA) in circumstances where, before the conclusion of the
section 83 detention review, a determination that the Ministers’ security
certificate in relation to Mr. Jaballah is reasonable (the certificate
determination) is rendered.
[2] The
Ministers and Mr. Jaballah take the position that the section 83 detention
review can continue to its conclusion because the issues in relation to the
section 83 hearing are not rendered moot by the certificate determination.
Alternatively, they submit that it is possible for the detention review to
continue under subsection 84(2) of the IRPA, but only if a constitutional
exemption is granted from the 120 days prescribed by that subsection. In the
absence of the constitutional exemption, the court lacks jurisdiction to proceed
directly to a detention review under subsection 84(2).
[3] I
conclude that, when the certificate determination is rendered, the court’s
jurisdiction to continue a detention review under section 83 is extinguished.
Jurisdiction to proceed directly to a detention review under subsection 84(2) exists
only if the court grants a constitutional exemption from the 120 days
prescribed by the subsection. For reasons that will become apparent, I make no
determination, at this time, whether a constitutional exemption is warranted on
the facts of this case.
Background
[4] Mr.
Jaballah’s case has resulted in many hearings and proceedings that are well
documented in various decisions of the Federal Court and the Federal Court of
Appeal. For present purposes, there is nothing to be gained by reciting the
history. The facts and a chronology of the proceedings to date are extensively
reviewed in the Reasons for Order of Mr. Justice MacKay in Re. Jaballah
2006 FC 1230. Reference should also be had to Re. Jaballah 2006 FC 115,
F.C.J. No. 110. In the latter decision, because Mr. Jaballah, a foreign
national, had remained in detention for more than 4 years without judicial
review of the appropriateness of the detention continuing, he was granted,
pursuant to subsection 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the
Charter), a constitutional exemption from the application of subsection
82(2) of the IRPA (mandatory detention for a foreign national who is the
subject of a security certificate).
[5] Justice
MacKay conducted a detention review and dismissed the application for release.
On August 17, 2006, Mr. Jaballah applied for a review of his detention pursuant
to subsection 83(2) of the IRPA. The public hearings in relation to the
detention review began on October 2, 2006. Prior to the conclusion of the hearing,
the certificate determination (that the Ministers’ security certificate was
reasonable) was rendered. I requested submissions from counsel regarding the
impact and implications of the certificate determination in relation to the
section 83 hearing. The submissions and the reasons for my conclusion with
respect to the issue are contained in the paragraphs that follow.
The Submissions
[6] The
Ministers submit, and Mr. Jaballah concurs, that section 83 constitutes a rule
“that is concerned with when detention reviews for permanent residents (and in
this case Mr. Jaballah) begin”. The section is not concerned with the
termination of the review. It is asserted that the two triggers mandated by
section 83 the expiration of six months since the previous detention
review and no determination as to the reasonableness of the certificate
were met when Mr. Jaballah’s detention review began. There is nothing
contained in the IRPA and no legal authority to suggest, if the certificate
determination is rendered while a section 83 detention review is in progress,
that the detention review is thereby terminated.
[7] It
is jointly suggested that, in the normal case, the reasons for detention under
section 83 (the person is a danger or is unlikely to appear) survive a finding
that the certificate is reasonable. Similarly, an individual who may have been
released on conditions will not be detained merely because a determination that
the certificate is reasonable is rendered. In relation to the latter situation,
Mr. Jaballah refers to the Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18 and the
fact that its provisions mandate that a person released on bail be detained
when a committal order is made. No similar provision is found in the IRPA.
[8] In
sum, the contention of all parties is that the issues in relation to a section
83 detention review are not rendered moot by virtue of the certificate
determination, unless the certificate is quashed. That is not the situation
here.
[9] Alternatively,
all agree that it is open to the court to continue a section 83 detention
review under subsection 84(2) of the IRPA. However, this avenue is available
only if a constitutional exemption, from the operation of the prescribed 120
days from the date of the certificate determination, is granted.
[10] The
Ministers prefer that the matter be continued and determined under section 83
of the IRPA, notwithstanding the intervention of the certificate determination,
on the basis of the general principle that, where the court has properly assumed
jurisdiction over a matter, an explicit and express provision is required to
extinguish that jurisdiction. Referring to the principles of statutory
interpretation, the Ministers contend that continuing under section 83 and
making a determination, in accordance with the criteria contained within that
section, provides the least anomalous and the least tortuous path. The route
to get to subsection 84(2) is a drastic one. The fact that the court is
confronted with circumstances that the IRPA did not contemplate does not
justify departing from the procedure that would apply in the normal course.
[11] Moreover,
according to the Ministers, it would be inconsistent with the purpose of the
IRPA if the court, having heard the evidence that has been given during the
section 83 review, did not continue the hearing to its completion.
Additionally, in the absence of specific statutory authorization, it would be
inharmonious with the statutory purpose to import the evidence into a
“transformed” or “converted” subsection 84(2) proceeding. To do so would
produce an absurd result and violate the basic tenet of statutory
interpretation that absurdity is to be avoided. Last, the Ministers claim that
Mr. Jaballah’s right to a detention review should not be extinguished because
of the timing of an event which is beyond his control.
[12] As
for Mr. Jaballah, while he agrees that the issues arising out of a section 83
detention review are not rendered moot by the issuance of the certificate
determination, he views the jurisdictional issue somewhat differently. He
concedes that if the clear language of subsection 84(2) applies, the court is
without jurisdiction to proceed. However, in the circumstances of this matter,
there is good reason not to await the passage of 120 days. Grounds (including
the prohibition against removal to Egypt) exist upon which to
argue that a constitutional exemption from the 120 days ought to be granted in
this matter.
Issue
[13] The
sole issue is whether the court has jurisdiction to continue and conclude a
detention review under section 83 of the IRPA in circumstances where a
certificate determination (that the Ministers’ security certificate is
reasonable) is rendered during, but prior to completion of, the section 83
proceeding.
Relevant Statutory
Provisions
[14] The
applicable statutory provisions are attached to these reasons as Schedule”A”.
For ease of reference, sections 82, 83 and 84 of the IRPA are reproduced here.
|
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
S.C. 2001, c. 27
82. (1) The Minister and the Minister of Public Safety
and Emergency Preparedness may issue a warrant for the arrest and detention
of a permanent resident who is named in a certificate described in subsection
77(1) if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the permanent resident
is a danger to national security or to the safety of any person or is
unlikely to appear at a proceeding or for removal.
(2) A foreign national who is named in a certificate
described in subsection 77(1) shall be detained without the issue of a
warrant.
83.
(1) Not later than 48 hours after the beginning of detention of a permanent
resident under section 82, a judge shall commence a review of the reasons for
the continued detention. Section 78 applies with respect to the review, with
any modifications that the circumstances require.
(2) The permanent resident must,
until a determination is made under subsection 80(1), be brought back before
a judge at least once in the six-month period following each preceding review
and at any other times that the judge may authorize.
(3) A judge shall order the
detention to be continued if satisfied that the permanent resident continues
to be a danger to national security or to the safety of any person, or is
unlikely to appear at a proceeding or for removal.
84.
(1) The Minister may, on application by a permanent resident or a foreign
national, order their release from detention to permit their departure from Canada.
(2) A judge may, on application
by a foreign national who has not been removed from Canada within 120 days
after the Federal Court determines a certificate to be reasonable, order the
foreign national’s release from detention, under terms and conditions that
the judge considers appropriate, if satisfied that the foreign national will
not be removed from Canada within a reasonable time and that the release will
not pose a danger to national security or to the safety of any person.
|
Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés,
L.C. 2001, ch. 27
82. (1) Le ministre et le ministre de la Sécurité
publique et de la Protection civile peuvent lancer un mandat pour
l’arrestation et la mise en détention du résident permanent visé au
certificat dont ils ont des motifs raisonnables de croire qu’il constitue un
danger pour la sécurité nationale ou la sécurité d’autrui ou qu’il se
soustraira vraisemblablement à la procédure ou au renvoi.
(2) L’étranger nommé au certificat est mis en détention
sans nécessité de mandat.
83. (1) Dans les quarante-huit heures suivant le début de
la détention du résident permanent, le juge entreprend le contrôle des motifs
justifiant le maintien en détention, l’article 78 s’appliquant, avec les
adaptations nécessaires, au contrôle.
(2) Tant qu’il n’est pas statué sur le certificat,
l’intéressé comparaît au moins une fois dans les six mois suivant chaque
contrôle, ou sur autorisation du juge.
(3) L’intéressé est maintenu en détention sur preuve
qu’il constitue toujours un danger pour la sécurité nationale ou la sécurité
d’autrui ou qu’il se soustraira vraisemblablement à la procédure ou au
renvoi.
84. (1) Le ministre peut, sur demande, mettre le résident
permanent ou l’étranger en liberté s’il veut quitter le Canada.
(2) Sur demande de l’étranger dont la mesure de renvoi
n’a pas été exécutée dans les cent vingt jours suivant la décision sur le
certificat, le juge peut, aux conditions qu’il estime indiquées, le mettre en
liberté sur preuve que la mesure ne sera pas exécutée dans un délai
raisonnable et que la mise en liberté ne constituera pas un danger pour la sécurité
nationale ou la sécurité d’autrui.
|
Analysis
[15] The
Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly articulated the proper approach to
statutory interpretation. In R. v. Jarvis, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 757, 2002 SCC
73 (Jarvis), at paragraph 77, the Supreme Court directed that “one is to
seek the intent of Parliament by reading the words of the provision in context
and according to their grammatical and ordinary sense, harmoniously with the
scheme and the object of the statute”. The stated principle was supported by
specific reference to the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21; Bell
ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559, 2002 SCC 42; Rizzo
& Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; R. v. Gladue,
[1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; E.A. Driedger, Construction of Statutes (2nd
ed.1983), at p. 87. The approach was confirmed again, in the context of
immigration law, in Medovarski v. Canada (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 539, 2005 SCC 51 at
paragraph 8 (Medovarski).
[16] This
search for parliamentary intent, in my view, constitutes an exercise in
ascertaining, in accordance with the noted principle, what Parliament set out
to accomplish. It is not an exercise in adopting a construction that the
parties, or the court for that matter, might prefer when the intent of
Parliament is evident. Put another way, the preferred view of the parties or
the court is not to be substituted for that of Parliament.
[17] The
impugned provisions are found in Part 1 (Immigration to Canada), Division 9
(Protected Information – Examination on Request by the Minister and the
Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) of the IRPA. The
objectives of the IRPA, in the context of immigration, are found in subsection
3(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court, in Medovarski at paragraph 12,
stated that the IRPA objectives indicate an intent to prioritize security
(paragraph 12). Reference to paragraph 3(1)(h) of the IRPA reveals an intent
to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to maintain the security of
Canadian society. Paragraph 3(1)(i) pertains to promoting international
justice and security by fostering respect for human rights and by denying
access to Canadian territory to persons who are criminals or security risks.
[18] Permanent
residents, prior to a certificate determination, are entitled to a review of
detention (subsection 83(2)). Foreign nationals may, after a certificate
determination, apply for a review of detention if removal has not been effected
within 120 days (subsection 84(2)). Judicial interpretation unequivocally holds
that the detention reviews operate in different contexts. Those differences
are delineated in the decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal in Charkaoui
(Re), [2004] F.C.R. 451, 2003 FCA 407 (Charkaoui) and Almrei v.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 3 F.C.R.
142, 2005 FCA 54 (Almrei).
[19] Section
83, specifically subsection 83(3) deals with preventive detention while
subsection 84(2) is concerned with removal: Charkaoui at paragraph 21.
Different tests are employed in determining whether an individual should be
released.
[20] The
subsection 83(3) test is founded primarily and almost exclusively on grounds of
national security during the process leading to the adjudication on the
security certificate. The other ground is the likelihood of the individual not
appearing at a proceeding or for removal: Almrei at paragraphs 34 and 35
(my emphasis).
[21] The
focus and key element of the subsection 84(2) test is whether the individual
will be removed within a reasonable time. It is only when there is evidence
that removal will not take place within a reasonable time that it is necessary
to consider whether release would pose a danger to national security: Almrei
at paragraphs 33 and 35.
[22] Under
section 83, the onus is on the Ministers to satisfy the criteria contained in
subsection 83(3) whereas in subsection 84(2), the onus is on the applicant. I
acknowledge that this particular factor is more theoretical than practical, as
noted by Mr. Justice Létourneau in Almrei, at paragraph 41.
[23] No
appeal lies with respect to a judge’s decision of a section 83 detention
review: Charkaoui at paragraph 33. A right of appeal does exist in
relation to a decision of a judge on a subsection 84(2) application: Almrei
at paragraph 38.
[24] Both
subsection 83(3) and subsection 84(2) share the common element of danger to
national security. I omit any reference regarding danger to the safety of any
person because the Ministers do not allege that Mr. Jaballah is a danger to the
safety of any person. However, the “danger” is at the forefront of the
subsection 83(3) inquiry while removal is the central question under subsection
84(2).
[25] Having
regard to the objects of the IRPA with respect to immigration, the context of
the Act in which the impugned provisions are located (the referral to the
Federal Court of a certificate stating that a permanent resident or a foreign
national is inadmissible on grounds of security) and the wording of those provisions
(according to their grammatical and ordinary sense), I conclude that
Parliament’s intent was to provide discrete proceedings, employing distinct and
different tests with respect to reviews of detention. Subsection 83(3) reviews
precede the certificate determination. Subsection 82(4) reviews, absent
removal within a reasonable time, follow the certificate determination. I am
also of the view that the court lacks jurisdiction to apply the criteria
contained in subsection 83(3) once the certificate determination is rendered.
[26] There
is no doubt that the simplest solution is to “finish what was started”. The Ministers’
argument for doing so is founded on two premises:
(1)
Mr.
Jaballah is to be treated as if he were a permanent resident; and
(2)
a
detention review, in progress under subsection 83(3) in relation to a permanent
resident, would continue to its conclusion notwithstanding the intervention of
the certificate determination.
[27] Mr.
Justice MacKay granted Mr. Jaballah a constitutional exemption from subsection
82(2), which mandates detention for foreign nationals, for the sole purpose of detention
review. He did not determine that Mr. Jaballah was to be treated as a
permanent resident or was to be accorded any rights otherwise accruing to
permanent residents.
[28] More
importantly, in my view, it is highly doubtful that a section 83 detention
review for a permanent resident who is in detention could continue, rather than
terminate, in the face of the certificate determination. Section 81 of the
IRPA provides that a certificate (determined to be reasonable) is conclusive
proof that the permanent resident or the foreign national named in it is
inadmissible and that the certificate determination constitutes a removal order
that may not be appealed against and that is in force without the necessity of
holding or continuing an examination or an admissibility hearing. In these
circumstances, as in the case of a foreign national, the emphasis necessarily
shifts to removal.
[29] Indeed,
in Almrei at paragraph 47, the Federal Court of Appeal specifically
stated that the permanent resident’s detention is the subject of constant
judicial supervision and protection until a determination is made on the
reasonableness of the certificate (my emphasis). It also stated that the law
appears to be silent on the question of the judicial examination of the
detention of a permanent resident after the certificate has been found to be
reasonable. In the “conclusion” segment of its reasons, the Federal Court of
Appeal referred to a number of operational difficulties posed by the IRPA. The
final sentence of its conclusion reads “[f]inally, Parliament should indicate
what remedy is available to a permanent resident who is detained and who will
not be removed from Canada within a reasonable time”. It seems to me that
this statement constitutes a clear indication that resort to a section 83
detention review is not an option.
[30] The
basis upon which the Ministers and Mr. Jaballah argue that the criteria in
section 83 should continue to apply, following the certificate determination,
is not clear to me. For the Ministers, counsel appears to assume that, for a
permanent resident, it would be so. No justification is advanced for that
conclusion. Mr. Jaballah’s analogy to the Extradition Act is not
helpful because it relates to an individual who has been released rather than
one who has been detained.
[31] It
makes no sense to me, once the certificate determination is made, that the test
for release from detention in relation to a permanent resident would be any
different than that for a foreign national, particularly when regard is had to
subsection 84(1), which permits the Minister, on application by a permanent
resident or a foreign national, “to order their release from detention to
permit their departure from Canada”. The pivot around which the release
provisions turn is the certificate determination. There are provisions for
release before the certificate determination (subsection 83(3)) and provisions
for release after the certificate determination (subsection 84(2)). The
noted Federal Court of Appeal jurisprudence, which is binding upon me,
extensively canvasses the distinctions between the provisions. I do not see
any basis upon which the court can pursue a detention review under subsection
83(3) once the certificate determination is rendered.
[32] I
reject the submission that the court should continue under section 83 because
of the evidence that has been heard during the course of the proceeding. No
reason has been stated as to why that evidence would not form part of the
record under subsection 84(2) if a constitutional exemption from the 120 days
prescribed by the subsection were granted. Should a constitutional exemption
not be granted, it remains open to the parties to consent, or to request, that
the evidence be read in as evidence on the subsection 84(2) proceeding.
[33] For
the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the court does not have jurisdiction,
after a certificate determination is rendered, to continue a section 83
detention review under the IRPA.
[34] The
remaining issue is whether Mr. Jaballah ought to be granted a constitutional
exemption from the 120 days prescribed by subsection 84(2). The parties were
not prepared to make submissions on this issue at the hearing. On the request
of counsel, I agreed to postpone submissions in relation to this issue pending
determination of the jurisdictional issue with respect to section 83 and to
receive the submissions in written form. Since Mr. Jaballah’s liberty is at
stake, I presume that counsel are prepared to proceed expeditiously in this
regard. Unless counsel request otherwise (in which case a teleconference with
counsel and the court will be convened), counsel for Mr. Jaballah shall serve
and file written submissions in relation to the issue of a constitutional
exemption not later than November 8, 2006. Counsel for the Ministers shall
serve and file responsive submissions not later than November 14, 2006 and
counsel for Mr. Jaballah shall serve and file reply submissions not later than
November 17, 2006.
[35] My
final observation having heard, reviewed and considered the
submissions of all parties as well as the orders giving rise to this proceeding
is that, on the facts of this case, the court’s jurisdiction to initiate
a second section 83 detention review is arguable.
.
“Carolyn Layden-Stevenson”
Ottawa, Ontario
October
31, 2006
SCHEDULE “A”
to
the
Reasons for order dated October 31, 2006
in
MAHMOUD ES-SAYYID JABALLAH
and
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
DES-4-01
|
Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act,
S.C.
2001, c. 27
76. The
definitions in this section apply in this Division.
“information”
means security or criminal intelligence information and information that is
obtained in confidence from a source in Canada, from the government of a foreign
state, from an international organization of states or from an institution of
either of them.
“judge” means
the Chief Justice of the Federal Court or a judge of that Court designated by
the Chief Justice.
77. (1) The
Minister and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness shall
sign a certificate stating that a permanent resident or a foreign national is
inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights,
serious criminality or organized criminality and refer it to the Federal
Court, which shall make a determination under section 80.
(2) When the certificate
is referred, a proceeding under this Act respecting the person named in the
certificate, other than an application under subsection 112(1), may not be
commenced and, if commenced, must be adjourned, until the judge makes the
determination.
78. The
following provisions govern the determination:
(a) the
judge shall hear the matter;
(b) the
judge shall ensure the confidentiality of the information on which the
certificate is based and of any other evidence that may be provided to the
judge if, in the opinion of the judge, its disclosure would be injurious to
national security or to the safety of any person;
(c) the
judge shall deal with all matters as informally and expeditiously as the
circumstances and considerations of fairness and natural justice permit;
(d) the
judge shall examine the information and any other evidence in private within
seven days after the referral of the certificate for determination;
(e) on
each request of the Minister or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency
Preparedness made at any time during the proceedings, the judge shall hear
all or part of the information or evidence in the absence of the permanent
resident or the foreign national named in the certificate and their counsel
if, in the opinion of the judge, its disclosure would be injurious to
national security or to the safety of any person;
(f) the
information or evidence described in paragraph ( e) shall be returned to the
Minister and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and
shall not be considered by the judge in deciding whether the certificate is
reasonable if either the matter is withdrawn or if the judge determines that
the information or evidence is not relevant or, if it is relevant, that it
should be part of the summary;
(g) the
information or evidence described in paragraph (e) shall not be included in
the summary but may be considered by the judge in deciding whether the
certificate is reasonable if the judge determines that the information or
evidence is relevant but that its disclosure would be injurious to national
security or to the safety of any person;
(h) the
judge shall provide the permanent resident or the foreign national with a
summary of the information or evidence that enables them to be reasonably
informed of the circumstances giving rise to the certificate, but that does
not include anything that in the opinion of the judge would be injurious to
national security or to the safety of any person if disclosed;
(i) the
judge shall provide the permanent resident or the foreign national with an
opportunity to be heard regarding their inadmissibility; and
(j) the
judge may receive into evidence anything that, in the opinion of the judge,
is appropriate, even if it is inadmissible in a court of law, and may base
the decision on that evidence.
79. (1) On the
request of the Minister, the permanent resident or the foreign national, a
judge shall suspend a proceeding with respect to a certificate in order for
the Minister to decide an application for protection made under subsection 112(1).
(2) If a
proceeding is suspended under subsection (1) and the application for
protection is decided, the Minister shall give notice of the decision to the
permanent resident or the foreign national and to the judge, the judge shall
resume the proceeding and the judge shall review the lawfulness of the
decision of the Minister, taking into account the grounds referred to in
subsection 18.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act.
80. (1) The
judge shall, on the basis of the information and evidence available,
determine whether the certificate is reasonable and whether the decision on
the application for protection, if any, is lawfully made.
(2) The judge
shall quash a certificate if the judge is of the opinion that it is not
reasonable. If the judge does not quash the certificate but determines that
the decision on the application for protection is not lawfully made, the
judge shall quash the decision and suspend the proceeding to allow the
Minister to make a decision on the application for protection.
(3) The
determination of the judge is final and may not be appealed or judicially
reviewed.
81. If a
certificate is determined to be reasonable under subsection 80(1),
(a) it
is conclusive proof that the permanent resident or the foreign national named
in it is inadmissible;
(b) it
is a removal order that may not be appealed against and that is in force
without the necessity of holding or continuing an examination or an
admissibility hearing; and
(c) the
person named in it may not apply for protection under subsection 112(1).
82. (1) The
Minister and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness may
issue a warrant for the arrest and detention of a permanent resident who is
named in a certificate described in subsection 77(1) if they have reasonable
grounds to believe that the permanent resident is a danger to national
security or to the safety of any person or is unlikely to appear at a
proceeding or for removal.
(2) A foreign
national who is named in a certificate described in subsection 77(1) shall be
detained without the issue of a warrant.
83. (1) Not
later than 48 hours after the beginning of detention of a permanent resident
under section 82, a judge shall commence a review of the reasons for the
continued detention. Section 78 applies with respect to the review, with any
modifications that the circumstances require.
(2) The
permanent resident must, until a determination is made under subsection
80(1), be brought back before a judge at least once in the six-month period
following each preceding review and at any other times that the judge may
authorize.
(3) A judge
shall order the detention to be continued if satisfied that the permanent
resident continues to be a danger to national security or to the safety of
any person, or is unlikely to appear at a proceeding or for removal
84. (1) The
Minister may, on application by a permanent resident or a foreign national,
order their release from detention to permit their departure from Canada.
(2) A judge
may, on application by a foreign national who has not been removed from
Canada within 120 days after the Federal Court determines a certificate to be
reasonable, order the foreign national’s release from detention, under terms
and conditions that the judge considers appropriate, if satisfied that the
foreign national will not be removed from Canada within a reasonable time and
that the release will not pose a danger to national security or to the safety
of any person.
85. In the
case of an inconsistency between sections 82 to 84 and the provisions of
Division 6, sections 82 to 84 prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
|
Loi
sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés,
L.C.
2001, ch. 27
76.
Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent à la présente section.
«
juge » Le juge en chef de la Cour fédérale ou le juge de cette juridiction
désigné par celui-ci.
«
renseignements » Les renseignements en matière de sécurité ou de criminalité
et ceux obtenus, sous le sceau du secret, de source canadienne ou du
gouvernement d’un État étranger, d’une organisation internationale mise sur
pied par des États ou de l’un de leurs organismes.
77.
(1) Le ministre et le ministre de la Sécurité publique et de la Protection
civile déposent à la Cour fédérale le certificat attestant qu’un résident
permanent ou qu’un étranger est interdit de territoire pour raison de
sécurité ou pour atteinte aux droits humains ou internationaux, grande
criminalité ou criminalité organisée pour qu’il en soit disposé au titre de
l’article 80.
(2)
Il ne peut être procédé à aucune instance visant le résident permanent ou
l’étranger au titre de la présente loi tant qu’il n’a pas été statué sur le
certificat; n’est pas visée la demande de protection prévue au paragraphe
112(1).
78.
Les règles suivantes s’appliquent à l’affaire :
a) le juge entend l’affaire;
b) le juge est tenu de
garantir la confidentialité des renseignements justifiant le certificat et
des autres éléments de preuve qui pourraient lui être communiqués et dont la
divulgation porterait atteinte, selon lui, à la sécurité nationale ou à la
sécurité d’autrui;
c) il procède, dans la mesure
où les circonstances et les considérations d’équité et de justice naturelle
le permettent, sans formalisme et selon la procédure expéditive;
d) il examine, dans les sept
jours suivant le dépôt du certificat et à huis clos, les renseignements et
autres éléments de preuve;
e) à chaque demande d’un
ministre, il examine, en l’absence du résident permanent ou de l’étranger et
de son conseil, tout ou partie des renseignements ou autres éléments de preuve
dont la divulgation porterait atteinte, selon lui, à la sécurité nationale ou
à la sécurité d’autrui;
f) ces renseignements ou
éléments de preuve doivent être remis aux ministres et ne peuvent servir de
fondement à l’affaire soit si le juge décide qu’ils ne sont pas pertinents
ou, l’étant, devraient faire partie du résumé, soit en cas de retrait de la
demande;
g) si le juge décide qu’ils
sont pertinents, mais que leur divulgation porterait atteinte à la sécurité
nationale ou à celle d’autrui, ils ne peuvent faire partie du résumé, mais
peuvent servir de fondement à l’affaire;
h) le juge fournit au
résident permanent ou à l’étranger, afin de lui permettre d’être suffisamment
informé des circonstances ayant donné lieu au certificat, un résumé de la
preuve ne comportant aucun élément dont la divulgation porterait atteinte,
selon lui, à la sécurité nationale ou à la sécurité d’autrui;
i) il donne au résident
permanent ou à l’étranger la possibilité d’être entendu sur l’interdiction de
territoire le visant;
j) il peut recevoir et
admettre en preuve tout élément qu’il estime utile — même inadmissible en
justice — et peut fonder sa décision sur celui-ci.
79.
(1) Le juge suspend l’affaire, à la demande du résident permanent, de
l’étranger ou du ministre, pour permettre à ce dernier de disposer d’une
demande de protection visée au paragraphe 112(1).
(2)
Le ministre notifie sa décision sur la demande de protection au résident
permanent ou à l’étranger et au juge, lequel reprend l’affaire et contrôle la
légalité de la décision, compte tenu des motifs visés au paragraphe 18.1(4)
de la Loi sur les Cours fédérales.
80.
(1) Le juge décide du caractère raisonnable du certificat et, le cas échéant,
de la légalité de la décision du ministre, compte tenu des renseignements et
autres éléments de preuve dont il dispose.
(2)
Il annule le certificat dont il ne peut conclure qu’il est raisonnable; si
l’annulation ne vise que la décision du ministre il suspend l’affaire pour
permettre au ministre de statuer sur celle-ci.
(3)
La décision du juge est définitive et n’est pas susceptible d’appel ou de
contrôle judiciaire.
81.
Le certificat jugé raisonnable fait foi de l’interdiction de territoire et
constitue une mesure de renvoi en vigueur et sans appel, sans qu’il soit
nécessaire de procéder au contrôle ou à l’enquête; la personne visée ne peut
dès lors demander la protection au titre du paragraphe 112(1).
82.
(1) Le ministre et le ministre de la Sécurité publique et de la Protection
civile peuvent lancer un mandat pour l’arrestation et la mise en détention du
résident permanent visé au certificat dont ils ont des motifs raisonnables de
croire qu’il constitue un danger pour la sécurité nationale ou la sécurité
d’autrui ou qu’il se soustraira vraisemblablement à la procédure ou au
renvoi.
(2)
L’étranger nommé au certificat est mis en détention sans nécessité de mandat.
83.
(1) Dans les quarante-huit heures suivant le début de la détention du
résident permanent, le juge entreprend le contrôle des motifs justifiant le
maintien en détention, l’article 78 s’appliquant, avec les adaptations
nécessaires, au contrôle.
(2)
Tant qu’il n’est pas statué sur le certificat, l’intéressé comparaît au moins
une fois dans les six mois suivant chaque contrôle, ou sur autorisation du
juge.
(3)
L’intéressé est maintenu en détention sur preuve qu’il constitue toujours un
danger pour la sécurité nationale ou la sécurité d’autrui ou qu’il se
soustraira vraisemblablement à la procédure ou au renvoi.
84.
(1) Le ministre peut, sur demande, mettre le résident permanent ou l’étranger
en liberté s’il veut quitter le Canada.
(2)
Sur demande de l’étranger dont la mesure de renvoi n’a pas été exécutée dans
les cent vingt jours suivant la décision sur le certificat, le juge peut, aux
conditions qu’il estime indiquées, le mettre en liberté sur preuve que la
mesure ne sera pas exécutée dans un délai raisonnable et que la mise en
liberté ne constituera pas un danger pour la sécurité nationale ou la
sécurité d’autrui.
85.
Les articles 82 à 84 l’emportent sur les dispositions incompatibles de la
section 6.
|
Email this Content