Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Citation:

Jaballah (Re), 2010 FC 507, [2010] 3 F.C.R. D-1

DES-6-08

Citizenship and Immigration

Exclusion and Removal

Inadmissible Persons

Security Certificate

Motion seeking cancellation of conditions of release because their continuation violating Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44], ss. 7, 9, 12, 15—Moving party detained under security certificate, subsequently released on strict conditions—Alternatively seeking variation of conditions pursuant to Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA), s. 82(4)—Moving party asserting because he cannot be removed from Canada, indefinite conditions of release unhinged from certificate’s original purpose of determining inadmissibility, removal—Although Court previously finding no exceptional circumstances justifying deportation to face torture, not conclusive whether or not moving party may be removed at future date—No evidence conditions indefinite—Therefore no evidence that conditions becoming unhinged—Removing onerous conditions possible if continuation constituting cruel, unusual treatment, inconsistent with principles of fundamental justice—However, because conditions not indefinite, no basis for such finding—Regarding relief sought pursuant to IRPA, s. 82(4), identifying conditions proportionate to moving party’s current threat at issue—Moving party’s current conduct, beliefs, compliance with conditions helpful evidence—Also given credit for restoring good relationship with Canada Border Services Agency—Breaches of conditions must be seen in context of overall compliance—Length of detention, uncertain duration of conditions favouring moving party—Minister not showing that threat not attenuated since last review—Court satisfied conditions of release may be modified in some respects—Motion granted in part.

Jaballah (Re) (DES-6-08, 2010 FC 507, Dawson J., judgment dated May 11, 2010, 91 pp.)

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.