Category: Ministerial Relief

. In Tameh v MCI 2008 FC 884 the Court set aside a decision denying ministerial relief. In this case the court found that the briefing note sent to the Minister with a recommendation did not contain all of the relevant information. The Minister therefore could not make an informed decision based on all of the circumstances and the decision was set aside. The Court noted: “Given the workload of Ministers of the Crown, I share Justice Strayer's view that merely attaching information to a Briefing Note not will suffice to demonstrate that highly relevant information relating to an application for Ministerial relief was indeed considered by the Minister.”

IT FOLLOWS A LINE OF PREVIOUS CASES ALL SAYING THE SAME THING...NAMELY THAT DECISIONS BY THE MINISTER UNDER 34 (2) SEEKING MINISTERIAL RELIEF MUST CONSIDER THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE AND PROVIDE FOR A PROPER BALANCING...

The case deals with issues related to the appointment of a special advocate in non security certificate cases which are issues on which the jurisprudence is limited. It also discusses the breach of fairness when relying on secret evidence and the requirement of being able to meet the case. Although the court did not find a breach its reasoning is important because it considers the scope of the duty and finds that there would have been a breach if the applicant had shown he was better able to address the issues. Finally the decision setting aside the minister's decision despite the high degree of deference is noteworthy.

The Court set aside a decision by the Minister refusing ministerial relief. The Court found that the conclusions made by the Minister were unreasonable.

The Court set aside a decision noting: "68 The failure of the Briefing Note to refer to clearly relevant evidence means that the decision under review lacks the justification, transparency and intelligibility required of the decision-making process. Moreover, having failed to consider and balance all of the relevant factors in assessing Mr. Momenzadeh Tameh's application for Ministerial relief, it cannot be said that the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law."

The Court dismissed an application for judicial review denying ministerial relief. The briefing note constituted reasons. Reasons were required. Fairness required that the briefing note be disclosed to the applicant prior to rendering a decision. The decision was reasonable and considered all of the relevant evidence.

The Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision denying ministerial relief. The Minister had considered all of the evidence and had done a proper balancing

The Court dismissed an application for judicial review holding that the Minister had properly considered all of the relevant circumstances and had done a proper balancing.

The Court set aside a decision denying ministerial relief. The Applicant had filed a rebuttal to the briefing note but there was no consideration of it in the final note submitted to the Minister. The Court found this to be reviewable error where the rebuttal challenged key facts put before the Minister.

The Court set aside a decision denying ministerial relief because the minister misconstrued evidence related to the applicant's activities in Canada.