Digests

Almrei (Re)

DES-5-01

2001 FCT 1288, Tremblay-Lamer J.

23/11/01

10 pp.

Determination under Immigration Act, s. 40.1(4)(d) of whether certificate filed by Minister of Immigration and Citizenship, Solicitor General reasonable on basis of information available to designated judge--Ahani v. Canada, [1995] 3 F.C. 669 (T.D.) summarizing review mechanism established by s. 40.1--At outset of hearing, respondent presented motion requesting testimony be heard in camera and that Court hold voir dire to determine whether testimony could be heard in camera--No explanation provided as to why totality of testimony needed to be heard in camera, except that not possible to sever portions of testimony that could be heard in public--Fundamental principle that hearings should be held in public--Court may direct that all or part of proceeding be heard in camera if, after hearing arguments, satisfied hearing should not be open to public: Federal Court Rules, 1998, r. 29(2)--Burden of displacing presumption of openness on party applying for exclusion of media, public--Must be sufficient evidentiary basis on record to support exclusion (which may be presented in voir dire)--Not displacing onus to justify by oral representations in open court need for in camera hearing--No explanation provided as to why disclosure might put other people at risk, or who may be at risk-- Assumed, from review of interviews given to media by respondent's counsel, that disclosure would jeopardize lives, safety of some of respondent's associates in other countries-- No explanation as to why facts relating to respondent's travel, status in Canada, interview with CSIS should be heard in camera--Considering contained in summary provided to him, which is in public domain, no reason why such information could put other individuals at risk--Furthermore, counsel not providing reasons why respondent could not testify to explain pictures found on his computer--Explanation provided to media that they were taken from articles respondent was reading online--By speaking to media on subject, counsel surely satisfied that information would not jeopardize lives, safety of client's associates--Therefore testimony relating to this testimony not required to be heard in camera--In light of lack of justification for in camera hearing, Tremblay-Lamer J. suggesting respondent testify in open court, and should areas of concern arise, hearing could be halted to provide counsel opportunity to address concerns--Instead respondent electing not to testify, thus failing to avail himself of opportunity to be heard--Confidential information strongly suppor-ting view that respondent member of international network of extremist individuals who support Islamic extremist ideals espoused by Osama Bin Laden, and that respondent involved in forgery ring with international connections that produces false documents--Certificate reasonable--Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, s. 40.1 (as enacted by R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 29, s. 4; S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 31)--Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/1998-106, règle 29(2).