ГУЛаг Палестины

cross-examine the RCMP witnesses who testified in camera. The Chairman of the Review Committee clearly indicated an intention to

allow such cross-examination:

Certainly, it would be my inclination that if the RCMP wish to call witnesses in support of any or all of the comments that they may

make in support of the Statement of Circumstances, there would be the opportunity for the applicant's counsel to cross-examine.

The respondent chose not to exercise these options. Having regard to the information that was disclosed to the respondent, the

procedural opportunities that were available to him, and the competing interests at play in this area, I conclude that the procedure

followed by the Review Committee in this case did not violate principles of fundamental justice.

VI. Conclusion

I would therefore allow the appeal, dismiss the cross-appeal, both with costs, and answer the constitutional questions as follows:

Main Appeal

1 (a) Do sections 82.1 and 83 of the Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, as amended by S.C. 1984, c. 21, s. 84 (now ss. 81

and 82 of the Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2) infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedoms?

Answer:Assuming without deciding that s. 7 applies, the answer is no.

(b) If the sections referred to above do infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter, are they justified by s. 1 of the

Charter?

Answer:This question does not have to be answered.

2 (a) Does reliance upon the certificate authorized by s. 83 of the Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, as amended by

S.C. 1984, c. 21, s. 84 (now s. 82 of the Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2) filed in the respondent's case result in an infringement of

his rights pursuant to s. 7 of the Charter, because the process followed by the Security Intelligence Review Committee did not meet the

requirements of s. 7?

Answer: Assuming without deciding that s. 7 applies, the answer is no.

(b) If reliance upon the certificate does infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter, is it justified by s. 1 of the Charter?

Answer:This question does not have to be answered.

Cross-Appeal

1 (a) Do s. 27(1)(d)(ii) and s. 32(2) of the Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, as amended by S.C. 1984, c. 21, s. 84 (now

s. 27(1)(d)(ii) and s. 32(2) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2) infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by ss. 7, 12 and 15 of the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in that they require the deportation of persons convicted of an offence carrying a maximum

punishment of five years or more, without reference to the circumstances of the offence or the offender?

Answer:With respect to s. 15, the answer is no. Assuming, without deciding, that either s. 7 or s. 12 apply, the answer is no.

(b) If the paragraph and subsection referred to above do infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by ss. 7, 12 and 15 of the Charter, are

they justified by s. 1 of the Charter?

Answer:This question does not have to be answered.

Appeal allowed and cross-appeal dismissed. With respect to the main appeal, assuming without deciding that s. 7 is applicable,

ss. 82.1 and 83 of the Immigration Act, 1976, do not infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedoms and reliance upon the certificate authorized by s. 83 of the Immigration Act, 1976, did not result in an infringement of s. 7

having regard to the process followed by the Security Intelligence Review Committee. With respect to the cross-appeal, the requirement

that persons convicted of an offence carrying a maximum punishment of five years or more be deported, without reference to the

circumstances of the offence or the offender, does not offend s. 15, or ss. 7 or 12 assuming without deciding that these sections applied.

Solicitor for the appellant: John C. Tait, Ottawa.

Solicitor for the respondent: Irwin Koziebrocki, Toronto.

Solicitors for the intervener: Noлl, Berthiaume, Aubry, Hull.

The official versions of decisions and reasons for decision by the Supreme

Court of Canada are published in the Supreme Court Reports (S.C.R.). This site is

prepared and published by LexUM in partnership with Supreme Court of Canada.

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT

INTRODUCED

OTTAWA, February 21, 2001 -- Elinor Caplan, Minister of Citizenship and

Immigration, today tabled the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in the House

of Commons, reaffirming her commitment to be tough on criminals while

strengthening efforts to attract skilled immigrants.

The new bill incorporates a number of recent proposals from Canadians, yet

maintains the core principles and provisions of Bill C-31, the immigration legislation

introduced prior to last fall's general election.

The Minister said the legislation reintroduces severe penalties -fines of up to

$1 million and life in prison -- for people smugglers and traffickers, speeds up

family reunification, and maintains Canada's humanitarian tradition of providing safe