Johanne Doyon

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.

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.