The appellant, named in a security certificate, sought a stay of proceedings after learning that CSIS had destroyed operational notes from his interviews and that the ministers had introduced new evidence late in the process.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that CSIS has a statutory and constitutional duty to retain and disclose its operational notes in targeted investigations, as the destruction of such notes compromises the judicial review process and the named person's right to procedural fairness under section 7 of the Charter.
However, the Court concluded that a stay of proceedings was premature and inappropriate at this interlocutory stage, and that the designated judge's decision to grant an adjournment remedied the late disclosure.
The Court also confirmed that new evidence may be admitted at any stage of the security certificate review.
