 Printer-Friendly Page
Date: 20050906
Docket: A-144-05
Citation: 2005 FCA 285
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED HARKAT
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA
Respondents
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 6, 2005.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 6, 2005.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: RICHARD C.J.
Docket: A-144-05
Citation: 2005 FCA 285
CORAM: RICHARD C.J. DÉCARY J.A.
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED HARKAT
Appellant
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario on September 6, 2005.)
[1] This is an appeal from a decision of Madam Justice Eleanor Dawson, a judge of the Federal Court, in which she found that the appellant was inadmissible to Canada as being a person described in paragraph 34(1)(c) and 34(1)(f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) on the basis that were reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant:
(i) has engaged in terrorism by supporting terrorist activity; and (ii) has been or is a member of Bin Laden network which is an organization with the reasonable grounds to believe has engaged or will engage in terrorism.
[2] In arriving at this decision Justice Dawson dismissed the appellant's application to have the provisions of sections 78 to 80 of the IRPA declared unconstitutional on the ground that the procedure set out in those sections did not meet the standard of fundamental justice within the meaning of Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
[3] In determining that sections 77 to 80 of the IRPA did not violate Section 7 of the Charter, Justice Dawson relied on this Court's decision delivered on December 10, 2004, in Charkaoui v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, [2005] 2 F.C.R., 299.
[4] In that judgment, this Court upheld the constitutionality of these provisions of the IRPA.
[5] Counsel for the appellant admits that Justice Dawson stated, quite correctly, that she was bound in this matter by the decision of this Court made in Charkaoui upholding the constitutionality of the provisions of the IRPA.
[6] The appellant submits that the decision in Charkaoui was in error and that sections 78 to 80 of the IRPA violate Section 7 of the Charter. [7] The constitutionality of sections 78 to 80 of the IRPA, including the need for the appointment of a Special Advocate, have already been decided in this Court's decision in Charkaoui.
[8] The appellant has not demonstrated any manifest error which would justify this Court in departing from its decision in Charkaoui and its more recent decision in Almrei v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 F.C.A. 54: [2005] F.C.J. No. 213.
[9] While the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal in Charkaoui, on August 25, 2005, this of itself is not a ground for this Court to decide this question anew.
[10] Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed.
"J. Richard" Chief Justice
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE FEDERAL COURT BY DAWSON, J. DATED MARCH 22, 2005 (DES-4-02)
DOCKET: A-144-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: Mohammed Harkat -and- Minister of Citizenship and Immigration et al
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: September 6, 2005
REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT : Richard C.J.
CONCURRED IN BY: Décary J.A. Létourneau J.A.
DATED: September 6, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Paul D. Copeland FOR THE APPELLANT
Mr. Donald A. MacIntosh FOR THE RESPONDENT Mr. John Loncar
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Copeland, Duncan FOR THE APPELLANT Toronto, Ontario
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
