Date: 20040722
Docket: DES-1-00
Citation: 2004 FC 1028
Ottawa, Ontario, Thursday the 22nd day of July 2004
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Dawson
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
and THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicants
(Responding Party)
- and -
MOHAMED ZEKI MAHJOUB
Respondent
(Moving Party)
and
THE TORONTO STAR NEWSPAPERS LTD.
Intervener
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
(Public Expurgated Version released August 16, 2004 pursuant to order of that date.)
DAWSON J.
[1] Mr. Mahjoub is a person named in a security certificate issued pursuant to paragraph 40.1(3)(a) of the former Immigration Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2). Mr. Justice Nadon, then a judge of this Court, found the certificate to be reasonable. On the basis of the security certificate, Mr. Mahjoub was detained on June 26, 2000. He has remained in detention since that date.
[2] Subsection 84(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 ("Act") entitles Mr. Mahjoub to seek an order releasing him from detention. Mr. Mahjoub has brought such an application, and in that application he asserts that his continued detention contravenes his rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982 ("Charter"). Mr. Mahjoub argues in respect of the operability and/or applicability of the applicable legislation that his continued detention by virtue of its duration, its indeterminacy, and the conditions under which it is occurring, constitutes cruel and unusual treatment, contrary to section 12 of the Charter, and constitutes a deprivation of his liberty and security of the person interests, contrary to section 7 of the Charter.
[3] In the course of giving his evidence relevant to his constitutional challenge, Mr. Mahjoub sought an order that he be permitted to give a portion of his evidence in camera, in the absence of members of the public, including the media. These reasons and this order are in response to that oral motion.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
[4] By agreement between counsel for the parties, the Court heard evidence relevant to Mr. Mahjoub's application for release and then rendered its decision as to whether Mr. Mahjoub had satisfied the statutory criteria for release. Because that decision was adverse to Mr. Mahjoub, the Court was then to hear argument as to the constitutionality of his detention. This argument was to be based upon the existing evidentiary record.
[5] However, after the Court decided that Mr. Mahjoub had not met the statutory criteria for release, counsel delayed scheduling the argument with respect to the constitutionality of Mr. Mahjoub's detention. Dates were set for this argument at the Court's initiative. Those dates were adjourned at Mr. Mahjoub's request after his original counsel withdrew and new counsel were appointed. New counsel then moved successfully for an order permitting further evidence to be adduced relevant to Mr. Mahjoub's constitutional challenge. As a result, the Court set aside five days, commencing on Monday, May 31, 2004, for the purpose of receiving further evidence and argument as to the constitutionality of Mr. Mahjoub's detention.
[6] Commencing on May 31, 2004, the Court heard evidence from: a representative of the Canada Border Security Agency who is the acting director of enforcement for the province of Ontario; Mr. Mahjoub's wife; the Security Manager of the Toronto West Detention Centre ("TWDC"); the health care co-ordinator of the TWDC; and the Imam and president of the Salaheddin Islamic Centre. The TWDC is the facility where Mr. Mahjoub is detained. On the afternoon of Tuesday, June 1, 2004 Mr. Mahjoub began to testify and at that time his counsel, properly in my view, advised that they would be requesting that a portion of Mr. Mahjoub's evidence be given in camera. This advice was given not only to alert the Court to this intended motion, but also to afford to members of the media the opportunity to arrange for counsel to attend in response to the intended motion. On receipt of this advice, the Court directed that Mr. Mahjoub give the evidence he was prepared to give in open Court and that any motion for an order permitting him to give evidence in camera would be considered the following day. That procedure was followed.
[7] On the morning of Wednesday, June 2, 2004, counsel advised that they had been contacted by counsel for the media. Counsel representing The Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. ("Toronto Star") appeared and sought leave to intervene in Mr. Mahjoub's application to have a portion of his evidence given in camera. Counsel for the parties consented to intervener status being granted to the Toronto Star. Given the general direction of the Supreme Court of Canada in Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835 that standing should be given to the media who seek standing and who meet the criteria for intervener status and my view that the Toronto Star met the requirements for standing, I granted leave to the Toronto Star to intervene in the application to have a portion of Mr. Mahjoub's evidence given in camera.
[8] There then followed argument as to the procedure to be followed in order to deal with Mr. Mahjoub's request. It was common ground that the onus was on Mr. Mahjoub to establish an evidentiary basis which would justify hearing a portion of his evidence in camera. Counsel for the Ministers and for the Toronto Star argued that the evidentiary basis should be led in open Court. Counsel for Mr. Mahjoub stated that there was a judicial discretion to allow the evidentiary basis supporting the application to be provided in a voir dire and that because Mr. Mahjoub was not in a position to lead such evidence in public, the Court should exercise its discretion to hold a voir dire in the absence of the public. Counsel for Mr. Mahjoub advised that she was unable to describe in a public forum the nature of the evidence she wished to call, the nature and severity of the threat feared if the evidence was led in public, or the source of the threat.
[9] In Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General) (Re R. v. Carson), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480 the Supreme Court of Canada wrote, at paragraph 72, that where an order is sought excluding the public and media from a courtroom the application must be supported by a sufficient evidentiary basis to allow the application to be properly assessed. The Supreme Court also observed that an applicant may seek to have that evidence adduced in camera in a voir dire. The decision whether to hold a voir dire is "to be a function of what is necessary in a given case to ensure that the trial judge has a sufficient evidentiary basis upon which to act judicially".
[10] Applying that legal criterion to the above representation of Mr. Mahjoub's counsel, an officer of this Court, I was persuaded to exercise my discretion to permit a voir dire, in the absence of the public, for the purpose of allowing a complete evidentiary record to be led upon which the decision whether to receive evidence in camera could properly be made. While the public was to be excluded, counsel for the Toronto Star was permitted to participate fully in the voir dire upon his oral undertaking not to reveal what transpired at the voir dire unless permitted to do so by the Court. Following such ruling, it was agreed that Mr. Mahjoub would complete his public testimony on June 2 and that the voir dire would commence on Thursday, June 3. This was done, in part, to accommodate the schedule of counsel for the Toronto Star who had been required to attend in Court on short notice.
[11] The voir dire commenced on Thursday, June 3 and continued until late on Friday, June 4, 2004. During the voir dire the Court heard the evidence of Mr. Mahjoub and Mr. Geswaldo, the Director of Security at the TWDC. Mr. Mahjoub's testimony outlined generally the nature of the evidence which he wishes to give in camera and what he fears if this testimony becomes publically known. Mr. Mahjoub did not give the detailed evidence that he wishes to give in camera. Mr. Geswaldo testified about [his view of the consequences that would likely flow if Mr. Mahjoub testified in public about the matters raised in the voire dire.] The Court also received into evidence copies of newspaper reports touching upon Mr. Mahjoub which were tendered on behalf of the Ministers and a copy of a magazine article tendered on behalf of the Toronto Star.
[12] At the request of counsel for Mr. Mahjoub and with the consent of all counsel, Mr. Geswaldo remained in Court throughout the voir dire on the basis that he was obliged to not disclose evidence or submissions adduced and advanced in the voir dire.
[13] Counsel for the Toronto Star cross-examined both witnesses following the cross-examination conducted by counsel for the Ministers. At the conclusion of the evidentiary portion of the voir dire, all counsel made full argument to the Court.
[14] Prior to hearing such argument, the Court raised with counsel whether it would be practicable for the argument to be done in public. Counsel for Mr. Mahjoub and the Ministers responded that the submissions would be inextricably linked to the evidence so that it would not be practicable to so proceed because the Court would be required to adjourn and go in camera so frequently that the process would become unwieldy. While counsel for the Toronto Star believed he could make most of his submissions in public, he fairly acknowledged that his submissions were at the "tail end" and that he could not speak for the submissions of other counsel. Given that the Court's discretion is to be exercised on the precise evidentiary basis before it, so that counsel's submissions ought properly to be strongly grounded in the evidence, I directed that the argument would proceed at least initially in camera, with leave to counsel to apply to have argument made in public. No such application was made.
[15] At the conclusion of the voir dire, the Court concluded the in camera sitting and members of the public were admitted into the courtroom. At that time, I provided a general explanation as to what had transpired during the voir dire. That explanation dealt with: how it was that the Court came to hold a voir dire in camera; the role of counsel for the intervener in the voir dire; the fact the Court had heard evidence from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on June 3 from two witnesses who described generally the evidence Mr. Mahjoub wishes to give in private and what is feared might happen if the evidence is given in public; the fact that further evidence was heard on June 4 until approximately 10:40 a.m., following which the Court heard argument that had continued until immediately before the Court resumed sitting in public; and that due to the lateness of the hour, and the significance of the issues raised, the Court was reserving its decision on Mr. Mahjoub's application.
APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
[16] Having set out that background, the following are the legal principles which apply to a request that the Court hold proceedings in private.
[17] It is a fundamental principle that the proceedings of Canadian courts are open and accessible to the public. This is a long recognized principle. The rationale for open proceeding was eloquently stated by Jeremy Bentham. His remarks have been quoted on more that one occasion by the Supreme Court of Canada:
"In the darkness of secrecy, sinister interest and evil in every shape have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice." "Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial." "The security of securities is publicity."
See: Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General) (Re R. v. Carson), supra at paragraph 21; 2004 SCC 43">Vancouver Sun (Re), 2004 SCC 43 at paragraph 24.
[18] Counsel for the parties and the intervener all argue that the exercise of the Court's discretion to trench on that fundamental principle of openness is properly anchored by the principles established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Dagenais, supra. Since the hearing of this application the correctness of this submission has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004 SCC 43">Vancouver Sun (Re), supra.
[19] Thus, where a judge is asked to limit freedom of expression of the public or the press in a judicial proceeding, either by way of closed proceedings or a publication ban, the judge is to apply the Dagenais test in order to balance freedom of expression and other important rights and interests. This balancing is required because where, as in the case of an application to restrict access to judicial proceedings, the Charter rights of two entities come into conflict, Charter principles require a balance to be achieved that respects the importance of both sets of rights. See Dagenais, at page 877.
[20] The Dagenais test requires a judge to restrict access to proceedings only when:
(a) such a restriction is necessary in order to prevent a real and substantial risk to the fairness of the hearing, because reasonably available alternative measures will not prevent the risk; and
(b) the salutary effects of the restriction outweigh the deleterious effects of the free expression of those affected by the ban.
See: Dagenais at page 878. See also: R. v. Mentuck, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 442 at paragraph 32 and 2004 SCC 43">Vancouver Sun (Re) at paragraph 29.
[21] To pose a serious risk to the proper administration of justice, the reality of the risk must be well-grounded in the evidence. It must also be a risk that "poses a serious threat to the proper administration of justice". See: Mentuck at paragraph 34.
[22] The burden of displacing the general rule of openness lies on the party making the application.
[23] In Dagenais, at pages 890 to 891, the Supreme Court provided some general guidelines, which guidelines apply equally to applications for evidence to be adduced in camera. The guidelines included:
(c) [...] A party who uses the power of the state against others must bear the burden of proving that the use of state power is justified in a free and democratic society. Therefore, the party seeking the ban bears the burden of proving that the proposed ban is necessary, in that it relates to an important objective that cannot be achieved by a reasonably available and effective alternative measure, that the proposed ban is as limited (in scope, time, content, etc.) as possible, and there is a proportionality between the salutary and deleterious effects of the ban [...].
(d) The judge must consider all other options besides the ban and must find that there is no reasonable and effective alternative available.
(e) The judge must consider all possible ways to limit the ban and must limit the ban as much as possible; and
(f) The judge must weigh the importance of the objectives of the particular ban and its probable effects against the importance of the particular expression that will be limited to ensure that the positive and negative effects of the ban are proportionate.
Having set out the applicable legal principles, I turn to their application to the facts before me.
ANALYSIS
Is it necessary to allow Mr. Mahjoub to testify in camera in order to prevent a real and substantial risk to the fairness of the hearing?
[24] Mr. Mahjoub argues that requiring him to give all of his evidence in public will place him at risk. He says that by requiring him either to accept such risk and testify, or to reject such risk and not testify, compromises his right to a fair hearing. This is a right guaranteed by the Charter.
[25] Mr. Mahjoub's testimony in the voir dire with respect to the nature of the evidence that he wishes to give in private and what he fears if the evidence becomes public may be summarized as follows:
(i)
a.
b.
c.
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
[26] On cross-examination Mr. Mahjoub's testimony was as follows:
(i)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xiv)
(xv)
(xvi)
[27] Mr. Geswaldo testified as follows in response to questions put to him by counsel for Mr. Mahjoub:
(v)
[28] In response to questions put to Mr. Geswaldo on cross-examination, it was his evidence that:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
[29] Having described the evidence before the Court, the first branch of the Dagenais test requires me to consider the need to allow in camera testimony in order to ensure that Mr. Mahjoub receives a fair hearing. A fair hearing would be one where Mr. Mahjoub is secure in providing his full evidence to the Court without a realistic fear of significant harm. This in turn requires me to assess whether Mr. Mahjoub's fear [ ] if his proposed evidence is given in public is well-grounded in the evidence. While Mr. Mahjoub also expressed concern about the safety of his wife and children, his counsel properly and fairly conceded that there was not an evidentiary basis to support that fear.
[30] Turning then to Mr. Mahjoub's fears [ ] I found the evidence of Mr. Geswaldo to be of significant assistance. His testimony was given in a thoughtful, forthright and even-handed way. I accept it in its entirety as did counsel for the Ministers. Counsel for the Ministers characterized Mr. Geswaldo as "a consummate professional" who is "fully informed with respect to these matters" and I agree.
[31] I therefore reject what I understand to be the submission of counsel for the Toronto Star that I ought to consider Mr. Geswaldo's position of authority at the TWDC and that it is in the interest of that institution that Mr. Mahjoub's allegations remain secret. I reject the submission that Mr. Geswaldo's evidence was somehow tailored in order to cloak the TWDC in secrecy. I reject this because it is inconsistent with my assessment of Mr. Geswaldo's credibility and professionalism. Further, this was not a suggestion put to Mr. Geswaldo on cross-examination.
[32]
[33] However, I must also consider the evidence that is already in the public domain. Already public is Mr. Mahjoub's evidence that:
i) officials at the TWDC have subjected him to strip-searches on a frequent basis, often twice a day and once with a female guard present. His complaint about this was met with the response "[t]his is jail policy. This is Canada".
ii) He believes he would be beaten if he refused to be strip-searched.
iii) Mr. Mahjoub spent time in segregation after an unspecified incident at the TWDC.
iv) He will only explain in a closed session why he was moved to segregation on or about September 14, 2001.
v) He wishes to testify in closed session about what happened on December 14, 2003 when he asked the guards to call the nurse to give him proper medication as he was unwell.
vi) He will not discuss the March 7, 2004 incident in a public session.
vii) He has a series of concerns surrounding the conditions of his detention including: the lack of a regular Islamic program, library facilities and an English program; the unavailability until recently of halal food; difficulties encountered obtaining privacy in order to shower and endeavouring to dry his hands after the necessary process of washing before prayer; and the location of the toilet in his cell which is in the same direction as the qidlah where Muslims direct themselves to pray. Indeed, the conditions of his detention are a basis for his argument that rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter are being contravened.
[34] Also in the public domain and widely reported by the media are:
i) The fact that the head of security at the TWDC was allowed to attend the voir dire.
ii) The open court proceedings were briefly adjourned to allow Mr. Mahjoub to compose himself before continuing his testimony about the conditions he faces at the TWDC.
iii) Mr. Mahjoub's counsel asked Mr. Geswaldo whether Mr. Mahjoub had complained to him about any physical or sexual attacks by the guards. While not reported in the media, Mr. Mahjoub's counsel also asked Mr. Geswaldo if Mr. Mahjoub had complained about verbal abuse or threats from guards.
iv) An article in the "Summer, 2002" edition of Saturday Night magazine where Mr. Mahjoub's former lawyer, Mr. Galati, is interviewed and quoted. The relevant portion of the article is as follows:
Galati says Jaballah isn't his only Muslim client starving himself. Mohamed Mahjoub, alleged by federal prosecutors to be a member of an al-Jihad cell called Vanguards of Conquest, has been in segregation as long as Jaballah - 130 days ("Most people lose it after 30 days," Galati says.) Mahjoub claims to have been the subject of constant strip searches and the victim of sexual harassment by guards. An abscessed tooth has left him unable to chew food with the left side of his mouth and he's been denied medical and dental care for six months. "Do you know why?" asks one of the reporters.
Galati turns down the corners of his mouth and makes a face that is, for him, the universal look of pure disgust. "Why?" he says. "Because they're just being fucking nasty".
[35] While not reported in the media, Mr. Mahjoub's institutional health care record was marked as a publicly available exhibit. In it is recorded a complaint by Mr. Mahjoub that he has been "threatened by others that he will be beaten up, raped".
[36] While Mr. Mahjoub may wish to expand on this evidence to give greater particularity, it is now in the public domain that he has significant concerns and criticism at the treatment he has received at the TWDC. To the extent that risk [ ] increases with the publicity that surrounds complaints, the fact that he has complaints and at least some indication of the nature of his complaints have now received significant publicity.
[37]
[38] While I accept that it may not be in Mr. Mahjoub's "best interest" within the TWDC for his complaints to be widely reported in the media, [ the ] evidence falls short of establishing that if he gives further public testimony about his complaints Mr. Mahjoub cannot be properly protected at the TWDC.
[39] When the evidence is carefully considered in its entirety, I find that it fails to establish that if Mr. Mahjoub provides further testimony in public [ ] he will be at a significantly increased risk of mental or physical harm from which the institution will be incapable of protecting him. Further, other measures [ ] may well be effective in reducing the risk of harm. [ ]
[40] This is what counsel characterize as a "high profile" case. In evidence are media reports respecting Mr. Mahjoub's current hearing which have been reported on the Canadian Press News Wire, in the Toronto Star, the Charlottetown Guardian, the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, the Edmonton Journal, and the Montreal Gazette. Future publication of Mr. Mahjoub's alleged treatment at the TWDC may reasonably be expected to bring heightened scrutiny to bear upon [ ] the TWDC. It may also be reasonably inferred that such scrutiny will come not only from the public but from officials in authority who are both empowered and legally and morally obliged to ensure that Mr. Mahjoub is lawfully and properly treated in scrupulous compliance with all governing policies, guidelines and the like. Their continuing scrutiny may reasonably be expected to reduce the risk [ ].
[41] I am satisfied, as well, that as head of security at the TWDC Mr. Geswaldo would see that everything possible is done to ensure that Mr. Mahjoub is properly treated. It is clear that Mr. Mahjoub places great trust and confidence in Mr. Geswaldo.
[42] Finally, Mr. Mahjoub is ably represented by two experienced counsel who will without doubt be vigilant in seeing that Mr. Mahjoub's rights are respected. In the past, Ms. Jackman has brought judicial proceedings with respect to conditions of detention. See: Almrei v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] O.J. No. 5198 (S.C.J.).
[43] My finding that the evidence fails to establish that it is necessary to allow Mr. Mahjoub to testify in private in order to protect him from a real, increased risk [ ] is dispositive of this application. However, I wish to comment briefly on my concerns about the efficacy of a ruling permitting Mr. Mahjoub to testify in camera and the deleterious effects of such a ruling.
The efficacy of permitting Mr. Mahjoub to testify in camera.
[44] With respect to the efficacy of allowing Mr. Mahjoub to testify in camera, as noted above, it is in the public domain that Mr. Mahjoub has serious complaints about the treatment he has received at the TWDC. From his public evidence that he believes he would be beaten if he did not allow himself to be strip-searched, his refusal to discuss certain incidents at the TWDC in public, and his counsel's questions to Mr. Geswaldo about complaints of physical or sexual assaults and verbal abuses or threats from guards, it may reasonably be inferred that Mr. Mahjoub has direct criticism [ ] of the way the TWDC operates. As well, I believe there is a valid basis for [ the ] belief that most probably a considerable number of people know about at least most of the [things] about which [Mr. Mahjoub] wishes to testify.
[45] Counsel for the Toronto Star advised that it was the threat of an in camera proceeding that "drove somebody to dig up" the 2002 Saturday Night article. In evidence is an article from the Toronto Star that reported on the voir dire and the Saturday Night article. [ ]
[46] From this, it is reasonable, I believe, to infer that if Mr. Mahjoub was permitted to testify in camera, the speculation and interest that secret testimony would fuel would lead to further investigations and the publication of the result of those investigations. The resultant publicity could well increase any risk to Mr. Mahjoub and would render the in camera proceeding inefficacious to prevent that increased risk.
The deleterious effect of permitting in camera testimony.
[47] With respect to the deleterious effects of allowing Mr. Mahjoub to testify in camera, counsel for Mr. Mahjoub conceded that this would have significant deleterious effect.
[48] [ ] At this time, when there is public debate on the proper intersection between the protection of individual liberty and the protection of national security, suppressing public knowledge of Mr. Mahjoub's testimony would have a significant deleterious effect.
[49] Mr. Mahjoub's testimony, if given publicly, would promote the public discussion of important issues and might prevent wrong-doing by placing those responsible for the conditions of detention under public scrutiny. Therefore, any salutary effect of allowing Mr. Mahjoub to testify in private is, in my view, outweighed by the deleterious effects of prohibiting open access to this proceeding.
[50] In the result, Mr. Mahjoub's request that he be permitted to testify in camera must be dismissed.
ORDER
[51] IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. These reasons for order and order are to be made available to counsel for the parties only, and are not to be filed on the public record unless later so ordered by the Court. Counsel's right to disseminate these reasons for order and order is governed by the agreement reached in Court and recorded in the transcript of the voir dire proceedings on the afternoon of June 4, 2004.
2. The request that Mr. Mahjoub be permitted to give a portion of his evidence in camera is denied.
3. Counsel for Mr. Mahjoub will have 7 days from the date of receipt of these reasons for order and order to serve and file confidential written submissions identifying those portions of the document, if any, which Mr. Mahjoub seeks to have redacted from the public version of the reasons and order.
4. Counsel for the Ministers and for the intervener shall serve and file any confidential reply submissions within 7 days of receiving Mr. Mahjoub's submissions.
5. Following receipt of those submissions the Court will then determine what redactions should be made so that an expurgated version of these reasons for order and order may be filed on the public record. If necessary the Court may convene a brief teleconference with counsel before determining what redactions should be made.
"Eleanor R. Dawson"
_______________________________________
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: DES-1-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION and THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
-and-
MOHAMED ZEKI MAHJOUB
-and-
THE TORONTO STAR NEWSPAPERS LTD.
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 3 and 4, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
OF THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DAWSON
DATED: July 22, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Donald MacIntosh FOR THE APPLICANT (MCI)
Mr. Daniel Roussy FOR THE APPLICANT (CSIS)
Mr. John Norris FOR THE RESPONDENT
Ms. Barbara Jackman FOR THE RESPONDENT
Mr. Ryder Gilliland FOR THE INTERVENER
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE APPLICANT (MCI)
Deputy Attorney General of Canada and THE APPLICANT (CSIS)
Toronto, Ontario
Ruby & Edwardh FOR THE RESPONDENT
Toronto, Ontario
Ms. Barbara Jackman FOR THE RESPONDENT
Toronto, Ontario
Blake, Cassels & Graydon FOR THE INTERVENER
Toronto, Ontario
Email this Content