Donald A. MacIntosh

The appellants, foreign nationals and a permanent resident, were detained under security certificates issued pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

They challenged the constitutionality of the IRPA's certificate scheme, which allows for detention and deportation based on secret evidence not disclosed to the named person.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the procedure for determining the reasonableness of a certificate infringes section 7 of the Charter because it denies the named person the right to know the case to meet, and is not saved by section 1.

The Court also found that the lack of prompt review for the detention of foreign nationals infringes sections 9 and 10(c) of the Charter.

The Court struck down the offending provisions but suspended the declaration of invalidity for one year to allow Parliament to amend the law.

The appellant inmates, serving life sentences, were involuntarily transferred from a minimum-security to medium-security institutions based on a computerized reclassification scale.

They applied to the provincial superior court for habeas corpus.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that provincial superior courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Court to hear habeas corpus applications from federal inmates and should not decline jurisdiction merely because an alternative remedy exists.

The Court further held that while the transfers were not arbitrary, the Correctional Service of Canada breached its statutory duty of disclosure under s. 27(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act by failing to provide the scoring matrix used in the reclassification.

This breach of procedural fairness rendered the transfer decisions null and void for want of jurisdiction.

The appellant, a Convention refugee from Iran, was suspected of being an assassin for the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration issued an opinion under s. 53(1)(b) of the Immigration Act that the appellant constituted a danger to the security of Canada and faced only a minimal risk of harm if deported.

The appellant challenged the decision and the constitutionality of the deportation provisions.

Applying the framework from the companion case of Suresh, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the appellant did not make out a prima facie case of a substantial risk of torture.

The Court found the Minister's decision was not patently unreasonable and that the appellant was provided with adequate procedural protections consistent with the principles of fundamental justice.

The appeal was dismissed.