Category: Use of Secret Evidence

The Court allowed a section 87 motion. The evidence in question had been inadvertently disclosed the court held that the inadvertent disclosure did not preclude the Minister from asserting national security privilege and found that there as a basis for the claim and no justification for the appointment of a special advocate

The court ordered disclosure of summaries of evidence that could not be disclosed on grounds of national security.

The Court explains its decision with some redactions as to why some of the information the government sought to repress in the report of the Arar Commission was released. The case provides a good example of balancing under section 38

The Court set aside a finding of the visa officer that the applicant was inadmissible on security grounds. The Court found that the evidence which included secret evidence not disclosed to the applicant did not meet the reasonable grounds threshold and that the inferences of the officer were unreasonable.

THE COURT QUASHED THE SECURITY CERTIFICATE AGAINST MR. ALMREI HOLDING THE CERTIFICATE ALLEGING THAT MR. ALMREI WAS A MEMBER OF A TERRORIST GROUP, ENGAGED IN TERRORISM OR WAS A DANGER TO SECURITY WAS NOT REASONABLE,

The Court found that some of the information that had been withheld ought to be disclosed and determined that as a result the application for judicial review ought to be granted.

The Court finds CSIS breached its duty of candour and orders disclosure of Source Files

The Court quashed a security certificate. The Court had ordered the Minister to disclose information to Charkaoui. The Minister refused and withdrew the information. The Court quashed the certificate and refused to certify a question.

The Court agreed to some variations of the conditions of release.

The Court held that the Special Advocates ought not to have been exuded from an in camera hearing. Although there might be claims of privilege which would justify this conduct the circumstances of the case did not justify it.