Canadian Security Intelligence Services Act (CA) (Re)

Canadian Security Intelligence Services Act (CA) (Re)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2020-07-27
Neutral citation
2020 FC 757
Notes
Reported Decision A correction was made on April 1, 2022
Decision Content
TOP SECRET
Date: 20200727
Docket: ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Citation: 2020 FC 757
Ottawa, Ontario, July 27, 2020
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Gleeson
BETWEEN:
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||| FOR WARRANTS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 16 AND 21 OF THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICES ACT, RSC 1985 C C-23
AND IN THE MATTER OF [A FOREIGN STATE, GROUP OF STATES, CORPORATION OR PERSON]
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction 4
II. Background 5
III. Issue 9
IV. Prior judicial treatment of section 16 of the CSIS Act 10
A. The decision in Within Canada FC 10
B. The decision in Within Canada FCA 16
V. Analysis 18
A. The Evidence 19
(1) Agreed facts 19
(2) The Service affiants 20
(a) The Internet and | 20
(b) The [proposed method of collection] 23
(3) |[Evidence relating to the particulars of the information sought] 27
(a) The significance of the || evidence 30
(4) Findings of fact 33
B. The impact of Within Canada FC 35
C. Interpreting section 16 37
(1) The relationship between sections 16 and 21 must be considered 37
(2) The meaning of “within Canada” 44
(3) Concluding remarks 50
D. The [|[jurisprudence relating to information accessible through the Internet relating to information accessible through the Internet] 52
(1) |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| (2)|(2)||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 52
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 54
(3) The |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| jurisprudence does not assist 55
VI. Conclusion 57
Explanatory Note
This public version of the Court’s Judgment and Reasons has been redacted to prevent the public disclosure of information that would be injurious to national security and the conduct of international relations or national defence of Canada. The redactions can make it difficult for the reader to appreciate the legal issues raised in this matter. Where appropriate, redacted text has been summarized to assist the reader. This Explanatory Note also seeks to assist the reader by providing an overview of the legal issues at play. This Explanatory Note does not form a part of the Court’s Judgment and Reasons.
These reasons consider applications by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (“the Service”) for warrants pursuant to sections 16 and 21 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act [CSIS Act]. The warrants were sought to enable the Service to provide assistance to a Minister pursuant to section 16 of the CSIS Act. The investigative powers sought in the warrants included the authority to initiate, from a location inside Canada, the collection of information outside Canada (the “investigative powers”).
The Court considered the meaning of the requirement, in section 16 of the CSIS Act, that the Service’s assistance to the Minister be provided “within Canada” and concluded that the use of the investigative powers, in the manner proposed in the applications, did not meet that requirement.
The Court concurred in the analysis of the same issue by Justice Noël in X (Re), 2018 FC 738 [X (Re)].
Also, the Court heard evidence on factual points that were not put in issue before Justice Noël, on the basis of which the Court made a factual finding that the investigative powers would allow for the collection of information in specific and knowable countries (other than Canada). This finding supported the legal conclusion that the use of the investigative powers would not involve assistance to the Minister “within Canada”. This evidence also supported the conclusion that the use of the investigative powers would be a violation of foreign domestic and/or international law and/or the international law principle of non-intervention.
The Court agreed with the conclusion in X (Re): one of the reasons that Parliament imposed, and has maintained, the “within Canada” requirement in section 16 is that Canada’s collection of foreign intelligence in foreign countries could harm Canada’s international relations. The Court found that the evidence in the underlying case—including the fact that the use of the investigative powers would take place in, and violate the domestic laws and/or international law and/or the international law principle of non-intervention in respect of specific foreign countries—made it even more evident that the use of the investigative powers had the potential to cause the harm that Parliament intended to avoid with the “within Canada” requirement.
This finding formed part of the basis upon which the Court found that a body of Canadian jurisprudence dealing with information in foreign jurisdictions was distinguishable, because that jurisprudence did not involve the collection of information in violation of foreign law, international practice or the comity of nations.
I. Introduction
[1] Section 16 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, RSC 1985 c C-23 [CSIS Act] authorizes the Canadian Security Intelligence Service [CSIS or the Service] to assist the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the collection of information relating to foreign states and persons “within Canada”. Section 21 provides that the Service may seek a warrant from this Court to allow it to perform its duties under section 16.
[2] In X (Re), 2018 FC 738 [Within Canada FC], Justice Simon Noël considered whether the words “within Canada” prevent the Service from obtaining a section 21 warrant for investigative activities undertaken pursuant to section 16 where those activities are not carried out entirely within Canada. More specifically the issue before him was whether this Court could authorize [a collection] - effected from within Canada - [for information]||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||| outside Canada.
[3] Justice Noël held that the proposed [collection] was contrary to the “within Canada” limitation imposed by Parliament.
[4] The refusal decision was appealed, where it was found that the evidentiary record was inadequate to allow the Federal Court of Appeal to fully consider and address the questions raised. The appeal was dismissed (Sections 16 and 21 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, RSC 1985, c C-23 (Re), 2018 FCA 207 [Within Canada FCA]).
[5] In this Application the Service has returned to the Court seeking authority to [collect the information]|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| of [foreign persons] |||||||||||||||||||||||| performing their work in Canada. The Service relies upon an evidentiary record that responds to a series of questions that the Court of Appeal identified as bearing directly upon the issues that arise.
[6] I have carefully considered the evidence, including evidence relating to how, and where, the [collection will occur]||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||. I too conclude that in the circumstances disclosed, in the manner proposed, this Court lacks the jurisdiction to authorize the collection [of the information sought]. My reasons follow.
II. Background
[7] In July 2018, the Minister |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| [Minister] wrote the Minister of Public Safety seeking the assistance of the Service in collecting intelligence relating to the capabilities, intentions and activities of [a foreign state, group of states, corporation or person] as required by paragraph 16(3)(b) of the CSIS Act. This assistance has been sought and provided, with limited exceptions, on an annual basis since |||||||| In August 2018, the Minister of Public Safety provided the requested consent.
[8] The Service subsequently brought this application seeking warrants pursuant to sections 16 and 21 of the CSIS Act. In doing so, the Applicant affirmed that non-warranted techniques would not provide the Service with all required information and expressed the belief that warranted powers were required. The Court had previously granted warrants to enable the Service to collect information relating to the capabilities, intentions or activities of [the foreign state, group of states, corporation or person].
[9] The warranted powers sought included |||||||||||||||||| warrant. The |||||||||||| warrant authorizes |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| identified in the warrant. This authority is not new, and the Service has [collected this type of electronic information] ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||| in Canada using this warranted power. Although the Service remains able to intercept and obtain [information] of interest, [some collection is no longer practical using prior methods] |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||.
[10] The [issue]||| |||||||||||||||| confronting the Service in this instance mirrors that which arose in Within Canada FC and was succinctly described by Justice Noël:
[6] |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||
[7] Information and intelligence collected, through past section 16 warrants, permitted the Service to provide the Minister with useful information on |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| It also provided the Service with information concerning |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| of which |||||||||||||||||||||||||| is deemed essential for the Service to be able to fulfill requests for assistance from the Minister.
[8] |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[9] |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[11] The Service believes, as was the case in Within Canada FC, that |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||. The result is |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| To address this change [and collect the ||||| information sought]| |||||| the Service has identified two [methods of collection].
[12] [The first method is not preferred by the Service].| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[13] [The second method is the one that the Service seeks authorization to employ and is described in greater detail later in these reasons]. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[14] The Attorney General acknowledges that [the information may be]|||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| outside of Canada’s geographic borders but nonetheless takes the position that the [proposed method of collection] occurs “within Canada” as that term is used in section 16 of the CSIS Act. The Court may therefore authorize the [use of the proposed method of collection].
[15] The application for warrants was heard on September 12, 2018. I was satisfied that the facts set out in the supporting affidavit and disclosed in the course of the affiant’s examination satisfied the requirements identified at subsection 21(3) of the CSIS Act, allowing for the issuance of the requested warrants. I remained seized of the matter for the purpose of determining the “within Canada” question [for the proposed method of collection].
[16] To assist the Court in addressing the issue raised, Mr. Gordon Cameron and Ms. Shantona Chaudhury were appointed as amici curiae (amici).
[17] A similar issue arises in [a contemporaneous application] In the matter of [a foreign state, group of states, corporation or person]. Warrants had previously been issued in [the contemporaneous application] and the Attorney General had brought a motion seeking to have the “within Canada” question addressed. To avoid multiple hearings on the same legal issue, the motion was abandoned and the records in Within Canada FC and ||||||||||||||||, 2018 FCA 207 (Within Canada FCA), and [the contemporaneous application] were filed, and form part of the record in this proceeding. The Attorney General and the amici were notified by way of Direction that any material they intended to rely upon from the other records filed was to be specifically drawn to my attention before or during the hearing of oral submissions.
[18] The evidence specific to this matter has addressed |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| in [the contemporaneous application] but has otherwise primarily focussed on [the foreign state, group of states, corporation or person at issue].
III. Issue
[19] The issue before the Court is as follows:
May a judge acting under section 21 of the CSIS Act, on an application for warrants in relation to section 16 of the CSIS Act, authorize persons who are located within Canada to [use the proposed method of collection to] obtain |||||||||||||||| information without regard to whether [the information is] inside or outside Canada?
IV. Prior judicial treatment of section 16 of the CSIS Act
[20] Prior to addressing the arguments advanced, it will be helpful to summarize the reasons of Justice Noël and the Federal Court of Appeal in Within Canada FC and Within Canada FCA.
A. The decision in Within Canada FC
[21] Justice Noël defines the issue in Within Canada FC as whether the proposed [method of collection]|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| contradicts the express geographic limitation imposed by section 16 of the CSIS Act. In answering this question, he undertakes a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the meaning of the phrase “within Canada”. He applies the modern or contextual approach to statutory interpretation, noting that the ordinary meaning approach, by itself, is not sufficient when interpreting legislation. Instead, context is paramount. A statutory provision is to be interpreted according to a textual, contextual and purposive analysis that seeks a meaning that is harmonious with the Act as a whole (Within Canada FC at paras 19, 20 and 21 citing Ruth Sullivan, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 6th ed (Markham: Lexis Nexis, 2014); X(Re), 2014 FCA 249, and Pierre-André Côté, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada, 4th ed (Toronto: Carswell, 2011)). He also notes that legislation that infringes upon civil liberties, the CSIS Act being such legislation, is to be interpreted cautiously. Investigative powers are to be scrutinized by the Courts to ensure judges do not inadvertently authorize the overstepping of the mandate and powers meticulously prescribed by Parliament. The infringement on fundamental liberties is to be minimized and the rule of law respected (Within Canada FC at paras 22-29, citing X (Re), 2016 FC 1105 [Associated Data]). He concludes that the circumscribed and strict mandate of the Service is applicable to not only the Service’s security intelligence functions, but extends to what he describes as the Service’s secondary functions, including foreign intelligence collection in an assistance role under section 16 of the CSIS Act (Within Canada FC at paras 25-29).
[22] In interpreting section 16, Justice Noël engages in the required three part analysis of the words “within Canada” – “dans les limites du Canada” in French.
[23] In considering the textual meaning of “within Canada”, Justice Noël concludes that “within”, used in English and “dans les limites” used in French clearly and unambiguously reference Canada’s physical and geographical boundaries. The Service’s foreign intelligence collection function is limited to Canada and subject to additional strictly prescribed statutory limitations or parameters (Within Canada FC at para 46). Despite the unambiguous meaning of the phrase, he notes that this textual interpretation is only available if it does not conflict with the broader scheme and objects of the CSIS Act.
[24] In addressing the words within their broader context, Justice Noël analyzes both the scheme of the CSIS Act, including recent legislative amendments, and the legislative history of the Act.
[25] In considering the scheme of the Act, he notes that Parliament limited the geographic scope of the Service’s foreign intelligence collection mandate, something it did not expressly do in setting out the Service’s primary domestic security intelligence mandate at section 12. He also notes that in 2015, Parliament amended the CSIS Act to, among other things, clearly indicate the Service was authorized to conduct activities abroad in fulfilling its section 12 mandate to investigate threats to the security of Canada (Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts, 2nd Sess, 41st Parl, 2015 (assented to 23 April 2015), SC 2015, c 9 [Bill C-44] ). Justice Noël notes that no similar change was made to section 16 at that time – the “within Canada” limitation was maintained. He concludes that there is a clear intent on the part of Parliament to limit section 16 activities to that which occurs within Canada’s borders (Within Canada FC at paras 60-63). In reaching this conclusion he points to (1) the express geographic limitation at section 16; (2) that section 12 contained no such express geographic limitation; (3) in the absence of an express limitation, Parliament nonetheless recently clarified that the section 12 mandate is not geographically limited; and (4) the limitation has been maintained in respect of the section 16 mandate.
[26] In addressing the Act’s legislative history Justice Noël highlights the distinction between the security intelligence and foreign intelligence mandates. He identifies the policy reviews that have addressed Canada’s foreign intelligence collection requirements over the last almost forty years, noting numerous proposals to remove the “within Canada” limitation from section 16 of the CSIS Act. He concludes Parliament has consistently “reconfirmed its intention to restrict foreign collection to within Canada…reflecting the clear intention of Parliament to ensure that the collection of foreign information and intelligence occurs solely in Canada” (Within Canada FC at para 100).
[27] In considering section 16 in a manner that is consistent with Parliament’s purpose for having enacted the CSIS Act, Justice Noël acknowledges that Canada has a material interest in the [electronic information].|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| However, he concludes that interest cannot lead one to an interpretation of section 16 that allows [the collection of information] ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||| outside Canada [by using the proposed collection method].
[28] Justice Noël accepts that interpreting section 16 to exclude the collection, by the Service, of information |[outside Canada] highlights a gap as between the foreign intelligence collection mandates of the Service and the Communications Security Establishment. He finds this gap has always existed, but acknowledges developments in technology have exacerbated it. The collection gap he finds is an insufficient basis upon which to adopt a purposive interpretation of section 16 that is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the words and the intent of Parliament as revealed in the prior two prongs of the interpretative analysis.
[29] Similarly, he finds that the changing nature of |||||||||||||||||| and the use of modern technology do not lead to a different interpretation of section 16. Citing extrinsic evidence, he finds Parliament clearly did not intend that section 16 be interpreted in a manner that permitted the conduct of foreign intelligence operations abroad. The legislative history demonstrates that the geographic limitation was intended to mitigate potential political, moral and diplomatic risks linked to foreign intelligence collection, activities that might be contrary to international and foreign domestic law. He finds section 16 represents Parliament’s middle ground between Canada’s interest in obtaining high quality foreign intelligence at home and abroad, and Canada’s interest in protecting its diplomatic relations and international reputation. Covert activities that could have the result of damaging Canada’s diplomatic relations and international reputation run contrary to Parliament’s intent to limit foreign intelligence collection to “within Canada”.
[30] Justice Noël finds that the purposive interpretation advanced by the Attorney General that supports the presence of an extraterritorial dimension when providing assistance from “within Canada” could open the door to covert activities such as hacking and cyber espionage. Such activity would go well beyond the purpose Parliament had intended for section 16 and expose Canada to the very risks posed by foreign intelligence collection that Parliament sought to mitigate through section 16.
[31] Parliament’s failure to pursue any amendment to the geographic limitation contained in section 16 when, in 2015, it amended the CSIS Act (Bill C-44) to clarify the Service’s section 12 mandate undermines any suggestion Parliament was unaware of or unable to anticipate technological change when it originally enacted section 16. Justice Noël concludes that the Attorney General’s purposive interpretation of section 16 might well reflect compelling reasons to amend the CSIS Act, but the arguments advanced do not allow the Court to ignore the clear words of the statute or to detract from the purpose for which the provision was enacted.
[32] Justice Noël also relies upon international law and the principles of statutory interpretation holding that domestic legislation is presumed (1) to conform with international law and (2) not to apply extraterritorially. He finds that these principles support his conclusions, there being no evidence to rebut these principles of statutory interpretation. He acknowledges and accepts the merits of jurisprudence recognizing the borderless nature of the Internet, but rejects the notion that the principles expressed extend so far as to encompass |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| (Within Canada FC at para 145).
[33] Finally, Justice Noël addresses the argument that the [collection] is occurring “within Canada” because [some aspects of the collection]||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||| occur within Canada, what he refers to as the |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| argument. He rejects this on the basis that [other aspects of the collection]||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| occur outside Canada in the territory of [a foreign state]. He distinguishes jurisprudence that relies on |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||. That presumption cannot be rebutted where Parliament has expressly limited the collection activity to “within Canada”.
[34] Justice Noël concludes by acknowledging the information at issue does, at law, have |||||| [more than one point of geographic importance].||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| However, he concludes context may result in [these points]|||||||||||||| being of differing legal significance and this must inform the analysis. In the case of [the proposed collection of electronic information], the legally consequential action occurs [outside Canada]||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||. Although the [process]|||||||||| is initiated from Canada, the legally consequential actions, [the collection of information]|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| occurs in a foreign jurisdiction. Justice Noël concludes that orchestrating [the collection]||||||||||||| from Canada does not change the character of what is being done, a covert collection activity [outside Canada] that is inconsistent with section 16 of the CSIS Act.
B. The decision in Within Canada FCA
[35] The Attorney General appealed the judgment insofar as it refused the authority to [collect information]||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| outside of Canada. The Attorney General took the position on appeal that the application had been mischaracterized, the CSIS Act misinterpreted and the jurisprudence relied upon by the Attorney General was improperly distinguished.
[36] In dismissing the appeal, Justice Laskin notes a number of issues were raised that could potentially require consideration. However, he concludes the evidentiary record was insufficient to allow the issues to be properly addressed, despite a request from the designated judge for evidence that would clearly and explicitly describe what was happening (Within Canada FCA at paras 5, 29). In dismissing the appeal, he notes that doing so does not foreclose the possibility a future application might advance sufficiently specific information to demonstrate the authority sought is consistent with section 16 of the CSIS Act. He identifies a series of 13 questions, all, or many of which, bear directly on the issues:
[30] For example, the evidence leaves the following questions, among others, unanswered:
▪ the nature of |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||
▪ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▪ ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▪ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▪ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▪ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▪ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▪ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▪ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▪ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▪ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▪ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▪ ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[31] These – or at a minimum many of these – matters bear directly on issues that we are asked to consider in this appeal.
V. Analysis
[37] The Attorney General submits that the record and the applicable jurisprudence require that the Court conclude the [proposed collection method] takes place “within Canada”. He submits that whether the issue is considered from the perspective of jurisdiction, statutory interpretation or as a question of fact, the Court must conclude [the proposed collection method] can be authorized.
[38] The amici submit that the [proposed collection method] cannot be properly characterized as occurring within Canada. However, even if it could, the amici argue [the proposed collection method] is contrary to foreign and international law. The amici submit that in the absence of an express legislative basis upon which to act without regard to foreign or international law, this Court lacks jurisdiction to authorize the [proposed collection method].
[39] Recognizing the evidentiary gaps identified by the Court of Appeal in Within Canada FCA, I will first review the evidence in some detail and set out my key findings of fact.
A. The Evidence
[40] To begin, I again note that this issue also arises in [the contemporaneous application], involving [a foreign state, group of states, corporation or person]. Although that record is before me, the evidence in this matter has focussed on [the foreign state, group of states, corporation or person at issue]. In my view the evidence as it relates to [the foreign state, group of states, corporation or person at issue] is, in all meaningful respects, consistent with the circumstances as they relate to [the contemporaneous application]. The Attorney General has not suggested otherwise and any differences do not impact on the conclusions I have reached.
[41] I further note that although the record before me is more detailed and specific than that which was before the Court in Within Canada FC, it is broadly consistent with that which was before Justice Noël.
(1) Agreed facts
[42] The amici and the Attorney General have agreed that:
The Court can reasonably infer that the collection of information in the manner described in the question before the Court will violate [foreign domestic and/or international law and/or the international law principle of non-intervention] over the location in which [aspects of the collection will occur].
(2) The Service affiants
[43] Three affidavits were filed in support of the Application. The affidavit of [the affiant] |||||||||| as elaborated upon in the course of viva voce evidence, details how the Service proposes to collect information |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||| I need only summarize |[the affiant’s]| evidence, and do so below.
[44] |[The affiant]| is currently the supervisor of |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| within the Service’s |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Branch, |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||. Her evidence is focused on two areas. First, she addresses data flow on the Internet |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| how users access that data, and how |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Secondly, she describes how the Service proposes to [collect information]|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||.
(a) The Internet and ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[45] [The affiant] describes the Internet as a network consisting of a series of electronic devices (including computers and mobile devices) and network equipment [devices] connected by various wired and wireless connections. These devices receive, transmit, and interpret electronic signals to accomplish tasks, some which occur in the background and are not apparent to a user of the Internet or the connected device. These background tasks include the routing of requests for and the transmission of information that allows Internet users to do such things as view websites, use social media, engage in online banking or shopping, and send or receive email.
[46] Each device has its own unique Internet Protocol [IP] address that facilitates the flow of information to the correct destination device. Users need not know individual IP addresses to access a device that contains information of interest. Instead, a user will access a webpage through a web browser by naming the webpage or website. The device and network will associate the website name with the correct IP address. Accessing information over a network does not allow a user to determine where the accessed information was stored or located. No special technical knowledge of the Internet and how it functions is needed to engage in any of these activities.
[47] Connections are made between devices using specific protocols. Any Internet-connected device can query another Internet-connected device, the request being routed through the Internet to the IP address being queried. The receiving device will determine if and how to respond. A negotiation process ensues, referred to as a “handshake”. The handshake forms the basis of establishing communications between devices. This all occu