Abdelrazik v. Canada (Foreign Affairs)

Abdelrazik v. Canada (Foreign Affairs)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2009-06-04
Neutral citation
2009 FC 580
File numbers
T-727-08
Notes
Reported Decision
Decision Content
Federal Court
Cour fédérale
Date: 20090604
Docket: T-727-08
Citation: 2009 FC 580
Ottawa, Ontario, June 4, 2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
BETWEEN:
ABOUSFIAN ABDELRAZIK
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Mr. Abdelrazik lives in the Canadian Embassy in Khartoum, Sudan, his country of citizenship by birth, fearing possible detention and torture should he leave this sanctuary, all the while wanting but being unable to return to Canada, his country of citizenship by choice. He lives by himself with strangers while his immediate family, his young children, are in Montreal. He is as much a victim of international terrorism as the innocent persons whose lives have been taken by recent barbaric acts of terrorists.
[2] Mr. Abdelrazik says that the government of Canada has engaged in a course of conduct designed to thwart his return to Canada and in so doing has breached his right as a citizen of Canada pursuant to section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) to enter or return to Canada. He describes the actions taken by Canada and its failure to act as “procrastination, evasiveness, obfuscation and general bad faith.”
[3] Canada challenges that characterization of its conduct. It says that the impediment to Mr. Abdelrazik’s return is not of its making but is that of the United Nations Security Council 1267 Committee which has listed Mr. Abdelrazik as an associate of Al-Qaida, thus making him the subject of a global asset freeze, arms embargo and travel ban.
[4] There is a tension between the obligations of Canada as a member of the UN to implement and observe its resolutions, especially those that are designed to ensure security from international terrorism and the requirement that in so doing Canada conform to the rights and freedoms it guarantees to its citizens.
[5] In addition to the tension between Canada’s international and national obligations, there is also a tension in this case between the roles of the executive and the judiciary. This is a positive tension; it results from the balancing necessary in a constitutional democracy that follows the rule of law. Lord Woolf[1] described this positive tension in the following manner:
The tension … is acceptable because it demonstrates that the courts are performing their role of ensuring that the actions of the Government of the day are being taken in accordance with the law. The tension is a necessary consequence of maintaining the balance of power between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary …
[6] The rule of law provides that the Government and all who exercise power as a part of the Government are bound to exercise that power in compliance with existing laws. It is one of the “fundamental and organizing principles of the Constitution”: Reference re Secession of Québec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 at para. 32. When the Government takes actions that are not in accordance with the law, and its actions affect a citizen, then that citizen is entitled to an effective remedy. Mr. Abdelrazik seeks such an effective remedy. He seeks an Order of this Court directing Canada to repatriate him to Canada “by any safe means at its disposal.” The respondents submit that no such remedy is required as there has been no violation of Mr. Abdelrazik’s rights by Canada and they further submit that in requesting such an Order the applicant is asking this Court to improperly tread on the rights and powers of the executive.
[7] I find that Mr. Abdelrazik’s Charter right to enter Canada has been breached by the respondents. I do not find that Canada has engaged in a course of conduct and inaction that amounts to “procrastination, evasiveness, obfuscation and general bad faith.” I do find, however, there has been a course of conduct and individual acts that constitute a breach of Mr. Abdelrazik’s rights which the respondents have failed to justify. I find that Mr. Abdelrazik is entitled to an appropriate remedy which, in the unique circumstances of his situation, requires that the Canadian government take immediate action so that Mr. Abdelrazik is returned to Canada. Furthermore, as a consequence of the facts found establishing the breach and the unique circumstances of Mr. Abdelrazik’s circumstances, the remedy requires that this Court retain jurisdiction to ensure that Mr. Abdelrazik is returned to Canada.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
[8] There is little dispute with respect to most of the relevant facts. Further particulars and findings of facts in dispute are discussed as necessary when analyzing the positions of the parties. Relevant provisions of the Charter, international instruments, and other relevant documents of a legal nature are reproduced and set out in Annex A to these Reasons.
[9] Mr. Abdelrazik was born in the Republic of Sudan and still holds Sudanese citizenship. Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir came to power in Sudan in 1989 when, as a colonel in the Sudanese army, he led a group of officers in a military coup. In 1989, Mr. Abdelrazik was jailed in Sudan as an opponent of the new government of President Omar al-Bashir. He came to Canada in 1990 claiming protection as a Convention refugee. The 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees provides that a refugee is a person who, "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country..." Canada has implemented this Convention by way of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[10] In 1992 Canada accepted Mr. Abdelrazik’s Convention refugee claim. Many refugees never apply for citizenship; they are content to reside in the country of refuge without taking on the responsibilities and the rights that come with citizenship. Mr. Abdelrazik was not of that thinking. He took the necessary steps and obtained his Canadian citizenship in 1995. He has had two Canadian wives, and is the father of three Canadian-born children. Although he is also a national and citizen of Sudan he says that he considers Canada to be his home.
[11] From 1990 to 2003, Mr. Abdelrazik lived in Montreal. There he was an acquaintance of Ahmed Ressam, who has since been convicted in the United States for plotting to blow up the Los Angeles Airport. Mr. Abdelrazik testified for the prosecution in Mr. Ressam’s trial. He notes that he did so voluntarily and that his testimony was not under compulsion. He also knew Adil Charkaoui, a Morocco-born permanent resident of Canada who was arrested in May 2003 by the Canadian Government under a security certificate issued pursuant to section 77 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act on the grounds that Mr. Charkaoui is a danger to national security. It is said that one is known by the company one keeps; however, Mr. Abdelrazik has never been charged with any criminal offence, terrorism-related or otherwise, in Canada or elsewhere in the world. There is no evidence in the record before this Court on which one could reasonably conclude that Mr. Abdelrazik has any connection to terrorism or terrorists, other than his association with these two individuals.
[12] In March 2003, Mr. Abdelrazik traveled to Sudan in order to visit his ailing mother and, he says, to escape harassment by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) in the wake of the terrorist attacks against the United States of America on September 11, 2001. The memorandum of argument filed by the respondents implies that Mr. Abdelrazik, having voluntarily returned to his country of birth, despite the fact that President Omar al-Bashir remains in power, may be said to be the author of his own misfortune. There is truth in the suggestion that whatever his motivation for returning to Sudan, it was ill-advised; if there was any doubt, subsequent events have proved it. The wisdom or foolishness of his choosing to return to his country of birth is irrelevant to the application before this Court. Charter rights are not dependent on the wisdom of the choices Canadians make, nor their moral character or political beliefs. Foolish persons have no lesser rights under the Charter than those who have made wise choices or are considered to be morally and politically upstanding.
[13] On or about September 12, 2003, Mr. Abdelrazik was arrested by the Sudanese authorities. The applicant characterized this detention as an “unlawful arrest and detention” throughout the hearing. That characterization is unquestionably correct from a Canadian law perspective; however, there is no evidence before the Court that the arrest was not in conformity with the law of Sudan. There is some evidence in the record that Sudanese officials recognized that their continued detention of Mr. Abdelrazik, without charge, violated his human rights. It may have been for this reason that they eventually sought to have him leave Sudan. In any event, whether the detention was or was not lawful in Sudan is irrelevant, in my view, to the issues before the Court. The only aspect of his detention that might be relevant is whether, as the applicant alleges, Canadian authorities requested his detention.
[14] Mr. Abdelrazik travelled to Sudan with a valid Canadian passport and could have returned to Canada prior to his detention. His passport expired while he was in detention and has not been renewed. That fact and other circumstances have prevented his return home to Canada.
[15] Mr. Abdelrazik’s first period of detention lasted some 11 months. He was initially held in the state security prison in Khartoum, and subsequently detained in Kober prison, and then at the facilities of the Sudanese Office for Crimes Against the Republic. He alleges that his detention and arrest by Sudan was specifically requested by CSIS. The respondents deny this claim. It is not disputed that Mr. Abdelrazik was interrogated by CSIS agents while in detention in Sudan.
[16] During Mr. Abdelrazik’s first period of detention, the Canadian Embassy in Khartoum provided consular assistance in the form of multiple consular visits and diplomatic representations requesting the Sudanese to provide him with due process. Mr. Abdelrazik claims that he was tortured during his time in detention. In his affidavit of June 25, 2008, he reports that he was beaten with a rubber hose, made to stand at attention hours at a time, subjected to confinement in a freezing cold cell, and also had his asthma medicine and eyeglasses taken away. At Kober prison, he went on three hunger strikes, and says that he was punished by beatings and solitary confinement. Canada denies any knowledge of Mr. Abdelrazik being tortured at the time he was in detention.
[17] In July of 2004, Mr. Abdelrazik was moved by the Sudanese to what he describes as a “half-way house” in Khartoum, where he enjoyed partial freedom of movement. He was required to report weekly to the Sudanese authorities and it would appear that formally he was still considered to be “in detention”. He visited the Canadian Embassy several times, urgently requesting assistance to return home to Canada. He also attempted to meet several prominent Canadian envoys to Sudan.
[18] It seemed as if Mr. Abdelrazik would be able to return to Canada. Foreign Affairs made real efforts in July of 2004 to fly Mr. Abdelrazik home via Frankfurt, with a diplomatic escort, on Lufthansa Airlines. Tickets were purchased by Canada for Mr. Abdelrazik using his then-wife’s funds. Days before the scheduled departure, however, Lufthansa informed the respondents it would not board Mr. Abdelrazik because his name was on a “no-fly” list.
[19] A Sudanese-rooted idea that Mr. Abdelrazik be returned to Canada aboard the jet of a visiting Canadian Minister was rejected by Canada in August 2004. Another possibility of repatriation emerged when, on October 20, 2004, Mr. Abdelrazik informed the Canadian consul in Khartoum that the Sudanese Government might be willing to provide an aircraft to fly him back to Canada. The Canadian Embassy advised the Sudanese in writing that Canada had no objection in principle to Sudan transporting Mr. Abdelrazik back to Canada so long as normal flight plan approval information was supplied, but cautioned that “the Government of Canada is not prepared to contribute to the cost of the flight and also not prepared to provide an escort for Mr. Abdelrazik on the flight.” In this application, Mr. Abdelrazik alleges that the refusal to provide an escort was fatal to the offer, on the basis that from Sudan’s perspective, provision of an escort was an “unconditional” requirement. The respondents deny that there was any such condition attached to the offer and contend that Sudan simply abandoned the plan.
[20] Mr. Abdelrazik was provided with a written decision from the Sudanese Ministry of Justice dated July 26, 2005, exonerating him of any affiliation with Al-Qaida. Notwithstanding this decision, in October of 2005, the applicant was summoned to a meeting by the Sudanese authorities. Mr. Abdelrazik was afraid that he might again be detained, and consulted with Canadian consular officials as to whether he should respond to the Sudanese summons. He was told that he should, and was assured that Canada would “follow up” if anything should happen.
[21] Mr. Abdelrazik attended as summoned and was indeed detained for some nine months, until July 2006. He was held at Dabak prison, where he says that detainees were “seemingly beaten at random.” During this second period of detention, Canadian consular officials sought but were denied access to Mr. Abdelrazik, who alleges that he was once again subjected to torture. Three to five days a month, he says, he was beaten with a rubber hose. On two occasions, he says, he was chained to the frame of a door and beaten.
[22] On July 20, 2006, the day of his release from detention, Mr. Abdelrazik was designated by the United States Treasury Department for his “high level ties to and support for the Al-Qaida network.” The next day, he was listed by the United States Department of State as “a person posing a significant risk of committing acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals and the national security.” The press release issued in conjunction with Treasury Department listing stated that “[a]ccording to information available to the United States Government, Abd Al-Razziq, has provided administrative and logistical support to Al-Qaida. He has been identified as being close to Abu Zubayada, a former high ranking member of the Al-Qaida network, involved in recruiting and training.”[2] The Court is not aware of any public disclosure by the U.S. Government as to what information was available to it on which it concluded that Mr. Abdelrazik provided support to Al-Qaida.
[23] On July 31, 2006, Mr. Abdelrazik was listed by the UN 1267 Committee as an associate of Al-Qaida. The role and function of the 1267 Committee is discussed in more detail below. At this point it is sufficient to state that this Committee implements UN Security Council Resolutions aimed at controlling international terrorism that the respondents assert have impacted Mr. Abdelrazik’s return to Canada. Listing by the 1267 Committee is based on information received from governments and international or regional organizations. According to the Committee’s Guidelines, a criminal charge or conviction is not a pre-requisite to listing.
[24] It is not known which government asked that Mr. Abdelrazik be listed. There has been speculation that his listing was at the request of the United States of America. That suggestion is reasonable in light of the evidence before this Court. First, there is uncontradicted evidence that Canada did not make the request for listing and did not participate in the listing decision as it was not a member of the UN Security Council. Second, there is the evidence that the Sudanese authorities had previously issued a letter exonerating Mr. Abdelrazik of any association with Al-Qaida. Third, there is the evidence that one week prior to the listing the United States issued statements asserting that Mr. Abdelrazik was associated with Al Qaida. It is the only country that has done so. Fourth, there is no evidence that the United States has ever resiled from that position.
[25] There is no direct evidence before this Court that Mr. Abdelrazik supports, financially or otherwise, is a member of, or follows the principles of Al-Qaida. There is no evidence before this Court as to the basis on which the United States authorities concluded that Mr. Abdelrazik has provided support to Al-Qaida and poses a threat to the security of the United States of America. There is no evidence before this Court nor, as shall be discussed later, that is currently available to Mr. Abdelrazik as to the basis on which the 1267 Committee listed him as an associate of Al-Qaida. The only direct evidence before this Court is in an affidavit filed by Mr. Abdelrazik in which he swears that he has no connection to Al-Qaida.
I am not associated with Al-Qaida and have never committed terrorist acts. I also do not support persons who commit acts of terrorism. As a Muslim, terrorism is against my religious beliefs. As a Canadian, terrorism endangers my family in Canada. For these reasons I am not a terrorist.
[26] Listing by the 1267 Committee triggers severe sanctions. It subjects listed persons to a global asset freeze, a global travel ban, and an arms embargo. The listing by the 1267 Committee also triggered the application of domestic legislation, namely the United Nations Al-Qaida and Taliban Regulations, SOR/99-444. Among other prohibitions, this Regulation prohibits anyone in Canada and any Canadian outside of Canada from providing funds to be used by a persons listed by the 1267 Committee as associates of Al-Qaida.
[27] In October 2007, counsel for Mr. Abdelrazik filed a petition requesting that the Minister of Foreign Affairs transmit his de-listing request to the 1267 Committee. In turn, Foreign Affairs made inquiries concerning Mr. Abdelrazik with both CSIS and the RCMP. These agencies responded as follows:
Mr. Abdelrazik voluntarily departed Canada for Sudan in March 2003. The Service has no current substantial information regarding Mr. Abdelrazik.
CSIS letter dated November 6, 2007
Please be advised that the RCMP conducted a review of its files and was unable to locate any current and substantive information that indicates Mr. Abdelrazik is involved in criminal activity.
RCMP letter dated November 15, 2007
[28] Following these responses from CSIS and the RCMP, the Minister of Foreign Affairs transmitted Mr. Abdelrazik’s de-listing request to the 1267 Committee. The briefing note prepared for the Minister in relation to the de-listing request states that “the Consular Branch fully supports [Mr. Abdelrazik’s] eventual return to Canada” and notes under the heading “Background” that “Mr. Abdelrazik retains the right to return to his own country of nationality. International law expressly provides for a right of return, and prevents a state from denying return to own’s state of nationality” [sic].”
[29] The request to be de-listed was denied by the 1267 Committee on December 21, 2007. No reasons were provided.
[30] On April 29, 2008 – just over a year ago – Mr. Abdelrazik, fearing that he might be again detained by the Sudanese authorities, sought and was granted safe haven at the Canadian Embassy in Khartoum. In the preceding months, he had received occasional visits from Sudanese intelligence personnel. He had also been interrogated by American intelligence agents. On September 12, 2007 he was intercepted on the way to a meeting with a photographer from the Globe & Mail newspaper and was warned not to speak to journalists. He remains at the Embassy to this day. Canada must share his view that he is at risk of further detention and torture in Sudan, without cause, if he leaves the Embassy, otherwise this extraordinary consular effort would not have been necessary and, based on the respondents’ submissions as to the level of consular assistance that Canadian citizens are entitled to receive, would not have been offered. Mr. Abdelrazik’s basic necessities are provided at the expense of the Canadian Government, which has obtained clearance from the 1267 Committee to provide in-kind assistance up to a value of $400 a month, as well as a monthly loan of $100. He is otherwise destitute.
[31] Counsel for the applicant met with officials from Foreign Affairs on February 27, 2008, to discuss his client’s situation. In a letter dated April 18, 2008, the Director of Consular Case Management for Foreign Affairs wrote as follows:
With respect to Mr. Abdelrazik’s passport application, I would like to remind you of our commitment, expressed in our meeting of February 27, to ensure that he has an emergency travel document to facilitate his return to Canada. We stand by that commitment. (emphasis added)
Passport Canada falls under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
[32] This representation was not new. Canadian officials had repeatedly stated within the foreign service, to the Canadian public and to Mr. Abdelrazik that Canada was committed to providing an emergency passport or travel document when Mr. Abdelrazik was in a position to return to Canada. Many of these representations have been gathered from the record and are set out in Annex B to these Reasons.
[33] On March 9, 2008, Mr. Abdelrazik applied for a Canadian passport. He had not received any response to an earlier passport application filed in December 2005. There is some evidence in the record that Passport Canada made a determination as early as August 2005 that Mr. Abdelrazik would not be issued a regular passport. In Case Note 175 dated August 8, 2005, Ralph Micucci, Passport Canada Security Operations Division, writes: “File reviewed and the only passport services which will be considered in respect of this subject is an Emergency Passport for return to Canada.” This appears to have been in response to a message in Case Note 173, dated August 8, 2005 in which the person covering for Ms. Gaudet-Fee writes:
In anticipation that subject contacts the mission to obtain a passport, we would be grateful for instructions. As you know, subject is on PCL. Please let us know as soon as possible what type of travel document can be issued by KHRTM.
PCL stands for Passport Control List. The “Passport Security – Control Requirements”, a document in the record, states:
The name of every person applying for passport facilities (or for financial assistance) should be checked against the Passport Control List (PCL) before any action is taken. The application form should be annotated according to the section reserved for official use. If the applicant’s name appears on the list, his/her application should be referred to JWD [Passport office] for decision.
[34] The note from Mr. Micucci prompted a response in Case Note 176 from the person sitting in for Ms. Odette Gaudet-Fee that “we need a substantive response (the basis of your decision) in order to justify the limitation of issuing only an emergency passport. We need the rationale behind it.” This request prompted Passport Canada to move the matter to the A/Manager, Entitlement Review who responded, ignoring the earlier decision reported by Mr. Micucci, by suggesting that no decision had yet been made as no passport application had been received. When the subsequent application was received the record indicates that no official response was provided to the applicant. Perhaps it was thought unnecessary because on October 22, 2005 he had been again detained by Sudanese officials. No official response advising Mr. Abdelrazik that he was not entitled to regular passport services would be provided for another three years. In response to his passport application of March 9, 2008, Passport Canada advised him on April 2, 2008 that it would authorize the issuance of an emergency passport to facilitate his repatriation.
[35] On August 25, 2008 Mr. Abdelrazik succeeded in obtaining a reservation on Etihad Airlines to return to Canada, via Abu Dhabi, subject to payment of the airfare. Despite the representations noted previously, Canada failed to issue a travel document.
[36] By letter dated December 23, 2008, counsel for Mr. Abdelrazik was informed by Passport Canada that its Investigation Section had initiated an investigation of Mr. Abdelrazik’s “entitlement to passport services” pursuant to section 10.1 of the Canadian Passport Order, which provides that “the Minister may refuse or revoke a passport if the Minister is of the opinion that such action is necessary for the national security of Canada or another country.” Pending the outcome of the investigation, counsel was informed that no regular passport services would be provided to Mr. Abdelrazik. The letter of December 23, 2008 reaffirms, however, that “Passport Canada will issue an emergency passport to Mr. Abdelrazik, upon his submission of a confirmed and paid travel itinerary to the Consular Section of the Canadian Embassy, Khartoum.” (emphasis added)
[37] In an appendix to its letter of December 23, 2008 Passport Canada included a copy of its guidelines entitled “Process by the Investigations Section of the Security Bureau Regarding Investigations Pertaining to Section 10.1 of the Canadian Passport Order.” Its process provides for notification of investigations and disclosure of investigations reports, as well as a right to make representations in response. The departmental “Backgrounder” on refusal or revocation of passports on national security grounds states that the investigative procedure “has been specifically designed to ensure procedural fairness and compliance with the rules of natural justice.” It would be reasonable to conclude that a passport refusal that ignored the process set out in these guidelines would prima facie not be in compliance with procedural fairness and the rules of natural justice. The relevance of this becomes evident when considering the decision of the Minister on April 3, 2009 to refuse an emergency passport to Mr. Abdelrazik without observing any of the guidelines established by his own department.
[38] On March 15, 2009, Mr. Abdelrazik provided the Manager of Consular Affairs at the Canadian Embassy in Khartoum with a confirmed and fully paid travel itinerary from Khartoum to Toronto, aboard Etihad Airlines, with a scheduled departure of April 3, 2009.
[39] The following day, counsel for Mr. Abdelrazik wrote to counsel for the respondents to advise of this new development. He asked the respondents to “take all necessary steps to ensure that Mr. Abdelrazik can return to Canada safely on April 3, 2009” (emphasis added). The letter cited the representations of Foreign Affairs that an emergency travel document would be issued upon submission of a paid and confirmed travel itinerary for Mr. Abdelrazik.
[40] On April 3, 2009, Mr. Abdelrazik learned from his counsel that the Minister of Foreign Affairs had denied his request for an emergency passport, by way of letter delivered approximately two hours before his scheduled departure. The single sentence letter signed by counsel to the Department of Justice, DFAIT Legal Services Unit, reads as follows: “Pursuant to Section 10.1 of the Canadian Passport Order the Minister of Foreign Affairs has decided to refuse your client’s request for an emergency passport.”
[41] Mr. Abdelrazik, in his affidavit sworn April 14, 2009, concludes with the following statement:
Because the Minister did not issue me a travel document, I was unable to board my April 3, 2009 flight and was unable to return to Canada on my own. I remain in the Canadian Embassy in Sudan.
LEGAL BACKGROUND
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
[42] The only Charter right raised by Mr. Abdelrazik in this application is his right, as a citizen of Canada to enter Canada, as provided for in subsection 6(1) of the Charter. This is a right guaranteed only to citizens of Canada; it does not extend to those who are merely resident in Canada or who have some other connection to Canada. This right is not without one limitation. It is subject “only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” as set out in section 1 of the Charter.
[43] The Supreme Court of Canada in United States of America v. Cotroni, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469 considered subsection 6(1) rights in the context of an extradition of a Canadian citizen to the United States of America to face criminal charges. The Court recognized the significance of the citizen and state relationship and further observed that interference with the right to remain in one’s country is not to be lightly interfered with. Justice La Forest at para. 16 of the judgment, describes it as follows:
In approaching the matter, I begin by observing that a Constitution must be approached from a broad perspective. In particular, this Court has on several occasions underlined that the rights under the Charter must be interpreted generously so as to fulfill its purpose of securing for the individual the full benefit of the Charter's protection (see the remarks of Dickson C.J. in Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145, at pp. 155-56; R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at p. 344). The intimate relation between a citizen and his country invites this approach in this context. The right to remain in one's country is of such a character that if it is to be interfered with, such interference must be justified as being required to meet a reasonable state purpose.
The same is to be said of the right, as a citizen of Canada, to enter Canada. Interference with that right is not to be lightly interfered with; if a citizen is refused the right to enter Canada then that refusal must be justified as being required to meet a reasonable state purpose.
[44] The position of the respondents is that it is not as a consequence of any of Canada’s actions that Mr. Abdelrazik has been prevented from entering Canada; rather it is as a consequence of his listing by the 1267 Committee as an associate of Al-Qaida. If true, then there is nothing Canada is required to justify because it is not Canada that is preventing this citizen’s entry into Canada.
Canada’s International Obligations
[45] Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations (the UN Charter) confers “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security” on the Security Council. Pursuant to Article 41 of the UN Charter, the Security Council may decide on measures to be employed to give effect to its decisions and call upon member nations to apply them.
[46] Article 25 of the UN Charter provides that “Members of the UN agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.” Canada is a member of the UN and in furtherance of its obligations has enacted the United Nations Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. U-2 which provides that the Governor in Council may make such orders and regulations as are “necessary or expedient” to effect decisions of the UN Security Council.
[47] In 1999, in response to the August 7, 1998 bombing of United States of America embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, by Usama bin Laden and his associates, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1267. Resolution 1267 was directed at the Taliban who were permitting their territory to be used by bin Laden and his associates. Section 4 of Resolution 1267 set out the measures the Security Council imposed on member nations. These were originally limited to a ban on Taliban aircraft landing or taking off from member states’ territory, save for humanitarian purposes or for the performance of religious obligations such as the performance of the Hajj, and to a freeze on funds and financial resources of the Taliban. A Committee of all members of the Security Council (the 1267 Committee) was established to implement Resolution 1267 and report back to the Council.
[48] The sanctions set out in Resolution 1267 has been modified and strengthened by subsequent resolutions, including resolutions 1333 (2000), 1390 (2002), 1455 (2003), 1526 (2004), 1617 (2005), 1735 (2006) and 1822 (2008) so that the sanctions now apply to designated individuals and entities associated with Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden and the Taliban wherever located. Specifically, by Resolution 1390 adopted January 16, 2002, these measures were expanded to address the Al-Qaida network and other associated terrorist groups as a response to the attacks on the United States of America on September 11, 2001. Notwithstanding these further Resolutions, the oversight group continues to be known as the 1267 Committee. The most recent Resolution, and that which presently applies to Mr. Abdelrazik as a consequence of being listed, is Resolution 1822, adopted June 30, 2008.
[49] As noted, Mr. Abdelrazik was listed by the 1267 Committee as being associated with Al-Qaida. Section 2 of Resolution 1822 defines “associated with” as including, but not being restricted to the following:
a. participating in the financing, planning, facilitating, preparing, or perpetrating of acts or activities by, in conjunction with, under the name of, on behalf of, or in support of;
b. supplying, selling or transferring arms and related materiel to;
c. recruiting for; or
d. otherwise supporting acts or activities of;
Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden or the Taliban, or any cell, affiliate, splinter group or derivative thereof.
[50] A Study commissioned by the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, summarizes the lack of legal procedures available to persons listed by the 1267 Committee.[3]
Targeted individuals and entities are not informed prior to their being listed, and accordingly do not have an opportunity to prevent their inclusion in a list by demonstrating that such an inclusion is unjustified under the terms of the respective Security Council resolution(s). There exist different de-listing procedures under the various sanctions regimes, but in no case are individuals or entities allowed directly to petition the respective Security Council committee for de-listing. Individuals or entities are not granted a hearing by the Council or a committee. The de-listing procedures presently being in force place great emphasis on the States particularly involved (“the original designating government” which proposed the listing, and “the petitioned government” to which a petition for de-listing was submitted by an individual or entity) resolving the matter by negotiation. Whether the respective committee, or the Security Council itself, grants a de-listing request is entirely within the committee’s or the Council’s discretion; no legal rules exist that would oblige the committee or the Council to grant a request if specific conditions are met.
At the same time, no effective opportunity is provided for a listed individual or entity to challenge a listing before a national court or tribunal, as UN Member States are obliged, in accordance with Article 103 of the UN Charter, to comply with resolutions made by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. If, exceptionally, a domestic legal order allows an individual directly to take legal action against a Security Council resolution, the United Nations enjoys absolute immunity from every form of legal proceedings before national courts and authorities, as provided for in Article 105, paragraph 1, of the UN Charter, the General Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (General Assembly Resolution 1/22A of 13 February 1946) and other agreements.
It has been argued by leading scholars of international law that the present situation amounts to a “denial of legal remedies” for the individuals and entities concerned, and is untenable under principles of international human rights law: “Everyone must be free to show that he or she has been justifiably placed under suspicion and that therefore [for instance] the freezing of his or her assets has no valid foundation.”
[footnotes and citations omitted]
[51] I add my name to those who view the 1267 Committee regime as a denial of basic legal remedies and as untenable under the principles of international human rights. There is nothing in the listing or de-listing procedure that recognizes the principles of natural justice or that provides for basic procedural fairness. Unlike the first Canadian security certificate scheme that was rejected by the Supreme Court in Charkaoui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9; [2007] 1 S.C.R. 350, the 1267 Committee listing and de-listing processes do not even include a limited right to a hearing. It can hardly be said that the 1267 Committee process meets the requirement of independence and impartiality when, as appears may be the case involving Mr. Abdelrazik, the nation requesting the listing is one of the members of the body that decides whether to list or, equally as important, to de-list a person. The accuser is also the judge.
[52] The 1267 Committee process has been amended since its inception to include a requirement that a narrative summary of the reasons for listing be included on the web site of the Consolidated Listing. Notwithstanding that Resolution 1822 provides that such information is also to be provided for those, such as Mr. Abdelrazik, who were previously listed, there is not yet any such narrative provided as regards the rationale for the listing of Mr. Abdelrazik.
[53] Originally de-listing requests could only be made by the individual’s home State. Again, there has been an amendment to allow a listed individual to make an application personally to the 1267 Committee or to do so through his home State. The Guidelines of the Committee for the Conduct of Its Work provide that a petitioner seeking de-listing “should provide justification for the de-listing request by describing the basis for this request, including by explaining why he/she no longer meets the criteria described in paragraph 2 of resolution 1617 (2005)…” (emphasis added). Those criteria are the four criteria set out above in paragraph 49. For a person such as Mr. Abdelrazik who asserts that he never met the criteria and was wrongly listed in the first instance, it is difficult to see how he can provide the requested justification, particularly when he has no information as to the basis for the initial listing. Section 7(g)(iii) of the Guidelines further provide that if the request for de-listing is a repeat request and if it does not contain any information additional to that provided in the first request, it is to be returned to the petitioner without consideration. It is difficult to see what information any petitioner could provide to prove a negative, i.e. to prove that he or she is not associated with Al-Qaida. One cannot prove that fairies and goblins do not exist any more than Mr. Abdelrazik or any other person can prove that they are not an Al-Qaida associate. It is a fundamental principle of Canadian and international justice that the accused does not have the burden of proving his innocence, the accuser has the burden of proving guilt. In light of these shortcomings, it is disingenuous of the respondents to submit, as they did, that if he is wrongly listed the remedy is for Mr. Abdelrazik to apply to the 1267 Committee for de-listing and not to engage this Court. The 1267 Comm