Federal Court to Decide on Hate Speech and Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

National Post has an update on a pending constitutional challenge at the Federal Court of Canada that may determine the ultimate fate of Canada's hate speech protections under the Canadian Human Rights Act:

A hearing this week in federal court offered a glimpse of this battlefield dynamic, and assuming all proposed intervenors are accepted, there will be four additional parties supporting the hate law, and four more against.

One major change is the withdrawal of the federal government, which intervened at the Tribunal in support of Section 13, but has decided to sit out this judicial review. A spokeswoman said the Department of Justice would "continue to monitor the proceedings.

A decision on the intervenors is expected next week. A trial is not yet scheduled.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Census Challenge to Be Heard in Federal Court

CBC reports that the Federal Court of Canada will hear argument today on a Charter challenge by a Francophone association to the Harper government's voluntary "census" law:

The Federation of Francophone and Acadian Communities of Canada has asked the court to void the Harper government's new policy, but it also wants an injunction that would keep the new census from being distributed this year.

The federation, which has also filed a complaint with Canada's official languages commissioner about the census change, argues that the government's new policy violates not only the Official Languages Act, but also the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The case is listed as FÉDÉRATION DES COMMUNAUTÉS FRANCOPHONES ET AL. c. SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE ET AL. (JR-Bilingual) - S. 18.1 Application for Judicial Review.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

On Courts, Khadr and Canada's Conservatives

CTV News reports today that Stephen Harper's Conservative government continues to hedge on whether it will abide by an April 23, 2009 Federal Court ruling, require it to formally request the repatriation of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen confined at Guantanamo Bay since 2002:  

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said Sunday the federal government is still pondering whether to appeal a Federal Court order on the Omar Khadr case.

On CTV's Question Period, Cannon reiterated the government is "looking very seriously" whether to appeal the order that it request the United States to send Khadr home from the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In a ruling released Thursday in Omar Ahmed Khadr v. The Prime Minister of Canada et al., Federal Court Judge James W. O'Reilly ordered the Stephen Harper government to demand Mr. Khadr's return to Canada from Guantanamo "as soon as is praticable."  

Mr. Kadr was 15 years old when he was originally detained in Afghanistan and accused of throwing a grenade at an American soldier.

The court's ruling comes at a time when Americans are actively debating whether criminal or congressional investigations are warranted into the use of so-called "harsh investigation methods" in Guantanamo and elsewhere, on orders of the departed Bush administration.   The Federal Court, however, makes it clear that Canada's federal government was complicit in the American utilization of these investigative "techniques" upon Mr. Khadr.

In view of recent developments in Washington, the Prime Minister's apparent resistance to the Federal Court's ruling seems particularly perplexing.  U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is "nearing decision" on the release of an initial group of Guantanamo detainees.  U.S. President Barack Obama's has pledged to close the prison by January, 2010.

In the Khadr ruling, Mr.  Justice O'Reilly pulled no punches in characterizing certain treatment afforded Mr Khadr at Guantanamo as torture, and noted that Canada's government "implicitly condoned" violations of international law by the U.S. government in its detention of Mr. Khadr.  

Excerpts from the Federal Court ruling follow:

[2] Mr. Khadr challenges the refusal of the Canadian Government to seek his repatriation to Canada. He claims that his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (sections 6, 7 and 12) have been infringed and seeks a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter. More particularly, Mr. Khadr asks me to quash the decision of the respondents not to seek his return to Canada and order the respondents to request the United States Government to repatriate him. Mr. Khadr also asks me to overturn the respondents’ decision on the grounds that it was unreasonable and taken in bad faith. Finally, Mr. Khadr seeks further disclosure of documents in the respondents’ possession.

[3] I am satisfied, in the special circumstances of this case, that Mr. Khadr’s rights under s. 7 of the Charter have been infringed. I will grant his request for an order requiring the respondents to seek his repatriation from the United States... 

...[56] Torture is defined under [The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment] as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession” (Art. 1). The Supreme Court of Israel has concluded that sleep deprivation “for the purpose of tiring [the suspect] out or ‘breaking’ him, … is not part of the scope of a fair and reasonable investigation” and harms “the rights and dignity of the suspect” (Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Israel, 38 I.L.M. 1471 at para. 31). Based on that decision, Justice Mosley concluded that the subjection of Mr. Khadr to sleep deprivation techniques offended the CAT.

...[61] Canada also has a duty to “take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of: any form of neglect, exploitation, or abuse; torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or armed conflicts” (Art. 39).

[62] Finally, Canada has recognized “the right of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth” (Art. 40.1).

[63] The [Convention of the Rights of the Child] imposes on Canada some specific duties in respect of Mr. Khadr. Canada was required to take steps to protect Mr. Khadr from all forms of physical and mental violence, injury, abuse or maltreatment. We know that Canada raised concerns about Mr. Khadr’s treatment, but it also implicitly condoned the imposition of sleep deprivation techniques on him, having carried out interviews knowing that he had been subjected to them.

[64] Canada had a duty to protect Mr. Khadr from being subjected to any torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, from being unlawfully detained, and from being locked up for a duration exceeding the shortest appropriate period of time. In Mr. Khadr’s case, while Canada did make representations regarding his possible mistreatment, it also participated directly in conduct that failed to respect Mr. Khadr’s rights, and failed to take steps to remove him from an extended period of unlawful detention among adult prisoners, without contact with his family. 

[65] Canada had a duty to take all appropriate measures to promote Mr. Khadr’s physical, psychological and social recovery.

...[68] Clearly, Canada was obliged to recognize that Mr. Khadr, being a child, was vulnerable to being caught up in armed conflict as a result of his personal and social circumstances in 2002 and before. It cannot resile from its recognition of the need to protect minors, like Mr. Khadr, who are drawn into hostilities before they can apply mature judgment to the choices they face.

...[91] I find that the Government of Canada is required by s. 7 of the Charter to request Mr. Khadr’s repatriation to Canada in order to comply with a principle of fundamental justice, namely,the duty to protect persons in Mr. Khadr’s circumstances by taking steps to ensure that their fundamental rights, recognized in widely-accepted international instruments such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, are respected. The respondents did not offer any basis for concluding that the violation of Mr. Khadr’s rights was justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

[92] The ongoing refusal of Canada to request Mr. Khadr’s repatriation to Canada offends a principle of fundamental justice and violates Mr. Khadr’s rights under s. 7 of the Charter. To mitigate the effect of that violation, Canada must present a request to the United States for Mr. Khadr’s repatriation to Canada as soon as practicable.

Scruffy Dan has thorough coverage on the court's ruling and the Harper government's continued waffling: The ongoing refusal of Canada to request Mr. Khadr’s repatriation to Canada offends a principle of fundamental justice and violates Mr. Khadr’s rights.

UPDATE I:

Also see Dave at Galloping Beaver, who surgically dissects the case against Khadr, and notes:

The worst part is the part you have not yet gathered in.

The government of the United States of America has told the government of Canada that they are willing to release Omar Khadr to Canadian custody on Canadian soil. All that has to happen is that the Canadian government officially request repatriation. That's the only condition.

Think I'm making that up? Then ask them. I know it's a fact. The US, as a matter of saving face in four different directions, wants to rid themselves of Omar Khadr but they need to do it under the proper optics. All that needs to be done is to have the Harper government make a public request. No back-channels.

Think I'm wrong?

Ask them. Ask them, if the Canadian government made a formal request to the government of the United States for the repatriation of Omar Khadr would he be returned to his country of birth?

Because if that happened Khadr would be on his way to Canada, in custody, but at least where the rule of law still has some meaning.

So, why won' Lawrence Cannon do that?  Because the "conservative" voting base would go ape-sh*t.

Not much of a reason.

UPDATE II:

I'd  highly recommend the helpful analysis of this ruling from McGill University's Human Rights and Legal Pluralism blog:

This is quite a bold decision by Mr Justice O’Reilly, in that it recognizes for the first time a duty on the part of Canada to intervene to protect its citizens abroad under certain circumstances. 

...the Federal Court goes much further than these earlier court orders and finds that Canada’s decision not to seek Khadr’s repatriation in light of Charter violations is itself a breach of the principles of fundamental justice guaranteed in section 7 of the Charter....

... as a rule Canada is under no obligation to intervene abroad to protect its citizens maltreated by another state. The decision whether to do so or not is a royal prerogative, a discretionary power with which courts will normally not interfere unless a Charter right has been breached. This is why it is central to the judgment to find that the decision not to seek Khadr’s return was, in itself, a breach of constitutional guarantees.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

A Parabola is a Mathematical Curve and not a Biblical Story – Federal Court Confirms

In a decision released on January 7, 2008, Mr. Justice Leonard Mandamin of the Federal Court of Canada set aside the order of an Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) adjudicator denying the refugee claim of a Chinese woman, Pin Xian Xin.

Ms. Xin entered Canada illegally and made a refugee claim, saying she feared persecution in China because of her membership in an underground church and for breaching China's one-child policy.

At the hearing of her claim she was repeatedly asked by an IRB adjudicator about Bible "parabolas." The IRB ruled Ms. Xin could not be a Christian -- partly because she did not know what a "parabola" is and could not answer the question "What is your favourite parabola?"

Justice Mandamin ruled:

"A parabola is a mathematical curve and not a Biblical story……………..the applicant cannot be faulted for the confusion."

Full text of the Judgment: Xin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

- Shashi K. Raina, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

A parabola is a mathematical curve and not a Biblical story – Federal Court Confirms

In a decision released on January 7th 2008 Mr. Justice Leonard Mandamin of the Federal Court of Canada set aside the order of an Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) adjudicator denying the refugee claim of a Chinese woman Pin Xian Xin.

Ms. Xin entered Canada illegally and made a refugee claim, saying she feared persecution in China because of her membership in an underground church and for breaching China's one-child policy.

At the hearing of her claim she was repeatedly asked by an IRB adjudicator about Bible "parabolas." The IRB ruled Ms. Xin could not be a Christian -- partly because she did not know what a "parabola" is and could not answer the question "What is your favourite parabola?"

Justice Mandamin ruled:

"A parabola is a mathematical curve and not a Biblical story……………..the applicant cannot be faulted for the confusion."

Full Text of the Judgement: Xin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

- Shashi K. Raina, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

Federal Court of Canada Cites Arar Case in "Damning Critique" of U.S. Refugee Policy

Interlawgrrls on last week's "damning critique" of U.S. refugee asylum policies by the Federal Court of Canada:

Yesterday, the Canadian Federal Court issued an opinion in the case Canadian Council for Refugees, Canadian Council of Churches, Amnesty International, and John Doe v. Her Majesty The Queen. This case challenges the "Safe Third Country Agreement" between Canada and the United States that came into force in December 2004.

This agreement provides that, with limited exceptions, individuals who first enter either Canada or the United States and then attempt to cross a land border into the other country in order to lodge an asylum claim must be returned to claim asylum in the first country they entered. In assessing the constitutionality of the agreement, the Canadian Court found that the United States does not comply adequately with Article 33 of the UN Refugee Convention, which prohibits return to persecution, or Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, which prohibits return to torture -- specifically naming the Maher Arar case as an example of the United States' failure to protect.

As one of the experts who described the ways in which U.S. asylum law (in particular, the one-year filing deadline) violates international law, I am proud to note that the court found "the Applicant's experts to be more credible, both in terms of their expertise and the sufficiency, directness and logic of their reports" and "more objective and dispassionate in their analysis and report" than the government's experts.

Of particular note, the Court found that "it would be unreasonable to conclude that the one-year bar, as it is applied in the U.S., is consistent with the Convention Against Torture and the Refugee Convention" and that this bar "has a disproportionate impact on gender and sexual orientation claims" for asylum. The Court also found that women making asylum claims based on domestic violence are not sufficiently protected under U.S. law. The long decision is well worth a read, and while it bodes well for asylum seekers in Canada (assuming that the judge's final order, after further submissions, follows this opinion, and that the decision survives appeal), it reads as a damning critique of the treatment of those seeking protection in the United States.

See also Andrew Sullivan's Rogue America on this case and the British "bounty hunting" case we discussed previously.

Other comments on Federal Court's decision:

• Amnesty International Canada News Release
• Release: Safe Third Country Agreement shown to violate refugee rights - Canadian Council of Refugees
• Refugee rights 'vindicated' by court ruling - Toronto Star
• Court Rules Against Deal That Allows Canada to Deny Refugees Coming From U.S. - Law.com
• "A Nation That Tortures" - Harper's Magazine

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

EMPLOYMENT LAW • CIVIL LITIGATION • WILLS AND ESTATES • FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE