Normand Lemyre

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 appellants, permanent residents ordered deported for serious criminality, appealed their removal orders under the former Immigration Act, triggering automatic stays.

Before their appeals were heard, the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) came into force.

Section 196 of the IRPA discontinued pending appeals for serious criminals unless they had been 'granted a stay'.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that 'granted a stay' refers only to actively ordered stays, not automatic statutory stays.

Applying principles of bilingual statutory interpretation, the Court found the narrower English version aligned with Parliament's intent to expedite the removal of serious criminals.

The Court also dismissed arguments that the retroactive removal of the appeal right violated section 7 of the Charter, concluding that deportation does not inherently implicate section 7 interests and the transitional scheme did not breach principles of fundamental justice.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration sought to deport the respondent, a permanent resident, alleging that a speech he delivered in Rwanda in 1992 constituted incitement to murder, hatred, and genocide, and a crime against humanity.

The Immigration and Refugee Board (Appeal Division) upheld the deportation order, but the Federal Court of Appeal set it aside after reassessing the factual findings.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Minister's appeal, holding that the Federal Court of Appeal exceeded its judicial review function by substituting its own findings of fact.

Applying customary international law and the Criminal Code, the Court found that the speech constituted incitement to murder, hatred, and genocide, and amounted to persecution as a crime against humanity.

The deportation order was restored.

The appellant brought a motion to strike certain documents from the respondents' record on appeal, including factums from the courts below, directions of the Court of Appeal, a motion to file fresh evidence, written representations on costs, correspondence, and a table of concordance.

The Supreme Court of Canada granted the motion in part.

The Court held that the factums, directions, motion, and representations on costs fell within the meaning of 'pleadings' and 'orders' under Rule 39(1)(b) and were properly included.

However, the correspondence and table of concordance constituted fresh evidence and were ordered struck from the record.

The Supreme Court of Canada delivered an oral judgment dismissing the appeal from the Quebec Court of Appeal regarding the interpretation of s. 76 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act and the division of powers concerning flour mills.

The Court adopted the reasons given by the Court of Appeal of Quebec and dismissed the appeal with costs.