(Supreme Court of Canada) The court considered the procedure for immigration appeals involving the use of evidence not to be given to the applicant.
Held: The statutory procedures for reviewing certificates of inadmissibility to Canada and consequent detentions were inadequate: ‘the government can do more to protect the individual while keeping critical information confidential’.
McLachlin CJ said: ‘Last but not least, a fair hearing requires that the affected person be informed of the case against him or her, and be permitted to respond to it.’ and ‘ . . The judge is therefore not in a position to compensate for the lack of informed scrutiny, challenge and counter-evidence that a person familiar with the case could bring. Such scrutiny is the whole point of the principle that a person whose liberty is in jeopardy must know the case to meet. Here that principle has not merely been limited; it has been effectively gutted. How can one meet a case one does not know?’
Judges:
McLachlin CJ
Citations:
[2007] 1 SCR 350, (2007) 276 DLR (4th) 594, (2007) 152 CRR (2d) 17, (2007) 44 CR (6th) 1, (2007) 54 Admin LR (4th) 1
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Canada
Cited by:
Cited – Times Newspapers Ltd v Secretary of State for the Home Department and AY Admn 17-Oct-2008
The newspaper applied to challenge the protection of the identity of the defendant subject to a control order under the 2005 Act. It said that there was no basis for the making of the order without first considering the Human Rights need for open . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF AM and AN etc CA 17-Oct-2008
The claimants were subject to non-derogating control orders, being non EU nationals suspected of terrorism. They now said that they had not had a compatible hearing as to the issue of whether they were in fact involved in terrorist activity.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
International, Natural Justice
Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.263783