A Toronto judge has blasted police tactics during last year's G20 summit.
Lawyers defending some of the people charged with offences in connection with last year's summit say a Toronto judge's ruling this week is going to have "an enormous impact" on their cases.
The case in question involved Michael Puddy, who took part in a demonstration on Saturday June 26, at the corner of Spadina Avenue and Queen Street West.
Puddy was on his way to a concert when he decided to join the peaceful protest.
Minutes later he had been pushed to the ground and cuffed with plastic restraints. He was held in custody for two days.
Police testified Puddy had a 15-centimetre knife attached to his belt.
Puddy, 32, from London, Ont., was eventually charged with obstructing police, concealing a weapon and possession of a prohibited weapon.
The first two charges were dismissed three months ago. On Thursday Puddy was found not guilty on the third charge.
His lawyer, Adam Goodman, said Puddy had "no intention to obstruct the police or cause any trouble," yet he was arrested.
The arrest of a man during last year's G20 summit in Toronto was 'completely unjustified,' a judge says. Justice Melvyn Green accepted Puddy's defence that he was not carrying the knife as a weapon and further ruled that since the arrest was illegal, so too was the search that uncovered the knife.
Puddy's arrest, he wrote, was "completely unjustified."
Green's judgment caused a stir because of its harsh criticism of police tactics. He said police officers acted as the aggressors that evening.
"The only organized or collective physical aggression at that location that evening was perpetrated by police each time they advanced on demonstrators," Green wrote.
He went on to say that the "zealous exercise of police arrest powers in the context of political demonstrations risks distorting the necessary if delicate balance between law enforcement concerns for public safety and order, on the one hand, and individual rights and freedoms, on the other."
Defence lawyer Howard Morton, who has two clients still facing G20 charges, said he thinks the ruling is "going to have an enormous impact."
"For the first time we have the outrageous conduct of the police that weekend being examined in a judicial setting in a criminal trial," said Morton.
"The judge called it what it was, outrageous police conduct."
Lawyers say the Ontario Court of Justice ruling will not set a precedent, but it will help to bolster defence arguments in future cases.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Friday, August 12, 2011
Failed refugee claimants only allowed a 'half appeal'? The government has already arrested six of the 30 men whose identities were published, and found one is no longer living in Canada. Canada Border Services Agency has deported three of the men arrested, the most recent on Thursday.
Jason Kenney and Amnesty International Canada have been going back and forth lately over the government's push to deport people linked to crimes against humanity.
The government has already arrested six of the 30 men whose identities were published, and found one is no longer living in Canada. Canada Border Services Agency has deported three of the men arrested, the most recent on Thursday.
One of the citizenship and immigration minister's points is that the Immigration and Refugee Board, a quasi-judicial tribunal, has found reasonable grounds that each of the 30 men on the list to be "complicit in genocide, crimes against humanity or a war crime."
"These findings were based on evidence -- including, in many cases, voluntary admissions -- after formal proceedings during which these men had the right to be represented by counsel," the minister writes.
"The Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) does not make allegations or accusations -- it makes formal findings of fact and its decisions may be appealed to the federal courts."
However, as some have pointed out, those facts can't be the basis for the appeal -- only errors of law.
And one of Amnesty's concerns is that "reasonable grounds" is a far lower standard than you'd see in a court trial.
Peter Showler, who was the IRB chair from 1999 to 2002, says the federal court appeal Kenney refers to, is more like a "half-appeal."
The federal court review is a judicial review, which looks at errors in law. The only way someone can challenge their finding of inadmissibility is to find a legal error in the IRB decision and challenge that.
"You only get to overturn it if they've made a real error of law," Showler said.
"You really don't get a judge to look at and overturn the decision because it's just unreasonable."
"He's taking advantage of the layperson's language, which means if there's some other court or body that can review, it's an appeal," added Showler, who's now director of the Refugee Forum at the University of Ottawa.
No one is disputing that the 30 men in question are in Canada illegally. They had no right to continue to live in Canada once their claims were dismissed by the IRB, and deportation is the government's legal recourse.
But Amnesty says that billing them as war criminals may be inaccurate -- it argues that we just don't know. The government has not provided information showing that the men have been convicted of war crimes, citing privacy -- another point addressed by Kenney in his letter.
In one case, an expert in crimes against humanity in Haiti had reportedly never heard of the Haitian man on the list.
If the men had new evidence to offer after they were deemed inadmissible, there's no hearing where they could present it.
"(The Conservative government is) using language to make these people seem as frightening and evil as possible simply because it makes headlines, but it has nothing to do with the practicality of who needs to be removed from the country," Showler said.
There is a refugee appeal process coming under legislation passed last year, but Showler says he and other experts are concerned it will only give 15 days for appellants to get their cases together -- a timeline he says would be like giving Canadians only 12 hours to prepare their taxes.
The government has already arrested six of the 30 men whose identities were published, and found one is no longer living in Canada. Canada Border Services Agency has deported three of the men arrested, the most recent on Thursday.
One of the citizenship and immigration minister's points is that the Immigration and Refugee Board, a quasi-judicial tribunal, has found reasonable grounds that each of the 30 men on the list to be "complicit in genocide, crimes against humanity or a war crime."
"These findings were based on evidence -- including, in many cases, voluntary admissions -- after formal proceedings during which these men had the right to be represented by counsel," the minister writes.
"The Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) does not make allegations or accusations -- it makes formal findings of fact and its decisions may be appealed to the federal courts."
However, as some have pointed out, those facts can't be the basis for the appeal -- only errors of law.
And one of Amnesty's concerns is that "reasonable grounds" is a far lower standard than you'd see in a court trial.
Peter Showler, who was the IRB chair from 1999 to 2002, says the federal court appeal Kenney refers to, is more like a "half-appeal."
The federal court review is a judicial review, which looks at errors in law. The only way someone can challenge their finding of inadmissibility is to find a legal error in the IRB decision and challenge that.
"You only get to overturn it if they've made a real error of law," Showler said.
"You really don't get a judge to look at and overturn the decision because it's just unreasonable."
"He's taking advantage of the layperson's language, which means if there's some other court or body that can review, it's an appeal," added Showler, who's now director of the Refugee Forum at the University of Ottawa.
No one is disputing that the 30 men in question are in Canada illegally. They had no right to continue to live in Canada once their claims were dismissed by the IRB, and deportation is the government's legal recourse.
But Amnesty says that billing them as war criminals may be inaccurate -- it argues that we just don't know. The government has not provided information showing that the men have been convicted of war crimes, citing privacy -- another point addressed by Kenney in his letter.
In one case, an expert in crimes against humanity in Haiti had reportedly never heard of the Haitian man on the list.
If the men had new evidence to offer after they were deemed inadmissible, there's no hearing where they could present it.
"(The Conservative government is) using language to make these people seem as frightening and evil as possible simply because it makes headlines, but it has nothing to do with the practicality of who needs to be removed from the country," Showler said.
There is a refugee appeal process coming under legislation passed last year, but Showler says he and other experts are concerned it will only give 15 days for appellants to get their cases together -- a timeline he says would be like giving Canadians only 12 hours to prepare their taxes.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
With less than two months to go before the Ontario election, a poll released Wednesday suggests that although Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak still remains ahead in popularity, Premier Dalton McGuinty is narrowing the gap.
With less than two months to go before the Ontario election, a poll released Wednesday suggests that although Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak still remains ahead in popularity, Premier Dalton McGuinty is narrowing the gap.
The Ipsos Reid poll conducted exclusively for Postmedia News, Global Television and CFRB NewsTalk1010 found 38% of respondents think Hudak would make the best premier out of all the of party leaders, compared with 33% who believe McGuinty should be re-elected for a third term. These latest numbers indicate a four-point jump for the premier, an improvement from an eight-point gap a year ago.
Hudak only gained one point.
“While the Conservatives have the edge, this is going to be a tightly fought campaign,” said pollster John Wright. “It’s going to matter what messages and policies either the opposition or the government will take to the people.”
NDP leader Andrea Horwath also showed a three-point surge in popularity, with 24% of those polled believing she would be the best person to run the province.
Green Party leader Mike Schreiner came in at five per cent, down eight points from last year.
Wright expects the poll numbers to sway back and forth once the writ drops in September and the election campaign officially begins.
“The electorate isn’t engaged yet in the campaign because it hasn’t really gotten underway,” he said. “What the numbers are showing is that all parties are still in the game, all parties in the hunt and there is some movement going on.”
In a flash sample poll conducted last weekend on 400 decided voters, Ipsos Reid found that the gap between Hudak and McGuinty continues to narrow. Of those polled, 38% say they would vote for Hudak and the Conservatives if an election were held tomorrow, while 36% would stick with McGuinty and the Liberals.
Despite these findings, the poll also discovered Ontarians are divided on whether they think the province is headed in the right track.
Fifty-one per cent responded yes, while 49% believed no, a drop of 19 points from last year.
Although attitudes about the province have vastly improved, 66% believe “it’s time for another political party to take over,” compared with 34% who say the “McGuinty government has done a good job and deserves re-election.”
According to the poll, Hudak still maintains a slight lead over McGuinty in most positive leadership attributes, including having a vision for the province, managing the province’s health care system and someone who is open to the ideas of others.
Those surveyed also believed McGuinty only fared better than Hudak in one leadership quality: someone who has a hidden agenda. The premier garnered 46% in this area, while Hudak came in at 35%, Horwath at 14% and Schriener at six per cent.
This was a large improvement for McGuinty who dropped 10 points in this poll compared to when the same question was asked last year, according to Ipsos Reid.
“No party should take anything for granted here,” said Wright. “It’s not a stretch to say that any of the parties can form a government. The NDP are in the hunt to, not to run the province, but they are viable spoilers and people are willing to take a listen.”
The findings in this survey were gathered from online responses between July 29 and Aug. 4 from a sample of 899 Ontario residents. The estimated margin of error is +/-3.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
The Ipsos Reid poll conducted exclusively for Postmedia News, Global Television and CFRB NewsTalk1010 found 38% of respondents think Hudak would make the best premier out of all the of party leaders, compared with 33% who believe McGuinty should be re-elected for a third term. These latest numbers indicate a four-point jump for the premier, an improvement from an eight-point gap a year ago.
Hudak only gained one point.
“While the Conservatives have the edge, this is going to be a tightly fought campaign,” said pollster John Wright. “It’s going to matter what messages and policies either the opposition or the government will take to the people.”
NDP leader Andrea Horwath also showed a three-point surge in popularity, with 24% of those polled believing she would be the best person to run the province.
Green Party leader Mike Schreiner came in at five per cent, down eight points from last year.
Wright expects the poll numbers to sway back and forth once the writ drops in September and the election campaign officially begins.
“The electorate isn’t engaged yet in the campaign because it hasn’t really gotten underway,” he said. “What the numbers are showing is that all parties are still in the game, all parties in the hunt and there is some movement going on.”
In a flash sample poll conducted last weekend on 400 decided voters, Ipsos Reid found that the gap between Hudak and McGuinty continues to narrow. Of those polled, 38% say they would vote for Hudak and the Conservatives if an election were held tomorrow, while 36% would stick with McGuinty and the Liberals.
Despite these findings, the poll also discovered Ontarians are divided on whether they think the province is headed in the right track.
Fifty-one per cent responded yes, while 49% believed no, a drop of 19 points from last year.
Although attitudes about the province have vastly improved, 66% believe “it’s time for another political party to take over,” compared with 34% who say the “McGuinty government has done a good job and deserves re-election.”
According to the poll, Hudak still maintains a slight lead over McGuinty in most positive leadership attributes, including having a vision for the province, managing the province’s health care system and someone who is open to the ideas of others.
Those surveyed also believed McGuinty only fared better than Hudak in one leadership quality: someone who has a hidden agenda. The premier garnered 46% in this area, while Hudak came in at 35%, Horwath at 14% and Schriener at six per cent.
This was a large improvement for McGuinty who dropped 10 points in this poll compared to when the same question was asked last year, according to Ipsos Reid.
“No party should take anything for granted here,” said Wright. “It’s not a stretch to say that any of the parties can form a government. The NDP are in the hunt to, not to run the province, but they are viable spoilers and people are willing to take a listen.”
The findings in this survey were gathered from online responses between July 29 and Aug. 4 from a sample of 899 Ontario residents. The estimated margin of error is +/-3.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
A group of experts in internet and privacy law want the government to study provisions they say could drastically affect Canadians' privacy rights.
A group of experts in internet and privacy law want the government to study provisions they say could drastically affect Canadians' privacy rights.
The provisions, which critics call warrantless online spying, were included in three lawful access technical surveillance bills from the last parliamentary session, but are expected to be rolled into the omnibus crime bill the Conservatives plan to table this fall. The Conservative election platform promised to reintroduce the electronic surveillance provisions as part of the omnibus crime bill.
The provisions would give law enforcement agencies more power to take information from internet service providers and other private companies without a warrant, according to Open Media, a consumer watchdog group.
Open Media is asking that the provisions be properly examined by MPs and senators in committee before the bill gets passed. The Conservatives have promised to pass the omnibus bill within 100 days of Parliament's post-election return, which was June 2.
Open Media worries that won't be enough time when combined with all the other bills expected to be rolled together.
Tamir Israel, a staff lawyer at the University of Ottawa's Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, says the potential for surveillance online is much greater than it was in a pre-internet era. CIPPIC is one of several groups and individuals who signed an open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, which was distributed Tuesday along with a news release by Open Media.
Smartphones, for example, come with GPS devices that can be used to track a user's movements. Social networking sites make it easier to see who's connected.
"Everywhere we go, everything we do is recorded," Israel said. "It's becoming more the case with smartphones and facial recognition. We want to make sure that we're justifying that expansion [of law enforcement powers]."
"The overarching concern is its an erosion of civil liberties and online privacy with no real justification for it," he added.
The legislation proposed in the last session would allow police to get some information without a warrant and other information with something like a court order, but with a lower standard of proof, Israel said.
The group is also worried about a lack of oversight for the new powers.
Privacy safeguards
A spokesman for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said while the law has to keep up with technology, there will be privacy safeguards in the bill.
"While technology has advanced rapidly in the past two decades, law enforcement and national security agencies have faced increased difficulty in protecting the safety and security of Canadians," Michael Aubie wrote in an email.
"Existing privacy safeguards in the Criminal Code will be maintained or enhanced under this legislation, including requirements for police to obtain prior authorization in the form of a judicial order or warrant. No information could be obtained by police without prior judicial authorization."
More details about the omnibus bill will be announced "in due course," he added.
The provisions, which critics call warrantless online spying, were included in three lawful access technical surveillance bills from the last parliamentary session, but are expected to be rolled into the omnibus crime bill the Conservatives plan to table this fall. The Conservative election platform promised to reintroduce the electronic surveillance provisions as part of the omnibus crime bill.
The provisions would give law enforcement agencies more power to take information from internet service providers and other private companies without a warrant, according to Open Media, a consumer watchdog group.
Open Media is asking that the provisions be properly examined by MPs and senators in committee before the bill gets passed. The Conservatives have promised to pass the omnibus bill within 100 days of Parliament's post-election return, which was June 2.
Open Media worries that won't be enough time when combined with all the other bills expected to be rolled together.
Tamir Israel, a staff lawyer at the University of Ottawa's Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, says the potential for surveillance online is much greater than it was in a pre-internet era. CIPPIC is one of several groups and individuals who signed an open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, which was distributed Tuesday along with a news release by Open Media.
Smartphones, for example, come with GPS devices that can be used to track a user's movements. Social networking sites make it easier to see who's connected.
"Everywhere we go, everything we do is recorded," Israel said. "It's becoming more the case with smartphones and facial recognition. We want to make sure that we're justifying that expansion [of law enforcement powers]."
"The overarching concern is its an erosion of civil liberties and online privacy with no real justification for it," he added.
The legislation proposed in the last session would allow police to get some information without a warrant and other information with something like a court order, but with a lower standard of proof, Israel said.
The group is also worried about a lack of oversight for the new powers.
Privacy safeguards
A spokesman for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said while the law has to keep up with technology, there will be privacy safeguards in the bill.
"While technology has advanced rapidly in the past two decades, law enforcement and national security agencies have faced increased difficulty in protecting the safety and security of Canadians," Michael Aubie wrote in an email.
"Existing privacy safeguards in the Criminal Code will be maintained or enhanced under this legislation, including requirements for police to obtain prior authorization in the form of a judicial order or warrant. No information could be obtained by police without prior judicial authorization."
More details about the omnibus bill will be announced "in due course," he added.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Tory transport minister Denis Lebel was a member of the Bloc.
After a week of attacking the NDP for choosing a former member of the Bloc Quebecois as its interim leader, it has emerged that the federal Conservatives also have a high-level member with former ties to the separatist party.
Tory transport minister Denis Lebel was a member of the Bloc during his time working for various civic-minded organizations in his home town of Roberval, a small town on Lac Saint-Jean, about 260 kilometres north of Quebec City.
Rae doubts Turmel's Bloc explanation His office confirmed his past association with the party Monday evening, but released few other details. It did not respond to a query as to why Mr. Lebel joined the Bloc, and if he had been a separatist.
In a statement to Radio Canada he said he took out the membership in part to ingratiate himself with Michel Gauthier, a former Bloc leader who served as the area's MP. SRC reported that Mr. Lebel was a member of the Bloc from July 1993 to April 2001 and that he also donated hundreds of dollars to the party during the 1990s.
Mr. Lebel went on to serve as mayor of Roberval from 2000 to 2007, stepping down to succeed Mr. Gauthier as MP following a by-election. He served as a junior minister starting in 2008 and was elevated to the transport and infrastructure portfolio following the last federal election.
The revelation comes after days in which the Tories heaped scorn on interim NDP leader Nycole Turmel, who was a member of the Bloc for four years and still has a membership in Quebec Solidaire, a separatist provincial party, which she has said she will cancel. The former president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada was named to helm the party while leader Jack Layton is away battling cancer.
The NDP alluded to Mr. Lebel's association with the Bloc in a press release last week, in which the party also took aim at junior cabinet minister Maxime Bernier for serving as an aide to separatist Quebec premier Bernard Landry, arguing that the Tories were being hypocritical in criticizing Ms. Turmel.
“We wonder why politicians who live in glass houses are throwing stones,” the party wrote.
Mr. Lebel's spokeswoman wrote in an email Monday that Mr. Lebel “has been transparent with his constituents” about his Bloc past. She said he joined the Conservative Party in 2007 because of Stephen Harper's vision for the economy.
Tory transport minister Denis Lebel was a member of the Bloc during his time working for various civic-minded organizations in his home town of Roberval, a small town on Lac Saint-Jean, about 260 kilometres north of Quebec City.
Rae doubts Turmel's Bloc explanation His office confirmed his past association with the party Monday evening, but released few other details. It did not respond to a query as to why Mr. Lebel joined the Bloc, and if he had been a separatist.
In a statement to Radio Canada he said he took out the membership in part to ingratiate himself with Michel Gauthier, a former Bloc leader who served as the area's MP. SRC reported that Mr. Lebel was a member of the Bloc from July 1993 to April 2001 and that he also donated hundreds of dollars to the party during the 1990s.
Mr. Lebel went on to serve as mayor of Roberval from 2000 to 2007, stepping down to succeed Mr. Gauthier as MP following a by-election. He served as a junior minister starting in 2008 and was elevated to the transport and infrastructure portfolio following the last federal election.
The revelation comes after days in which the Tories heaped scorn on interim NDP leader Nycole Turmel, who was a member of the Bloc for four years and still has a membership in Quebec Solidaire, a separatist provincial party, which she has said she will cancel. The former president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada was named to helm the party while leader Jack Layton is away battling cancer.
The NDP alluded to Mr. Lebel's association with the Bloc in a press release last week, in which the party also took aim at junior cabinet minister Maxime Bernier for serving as an aide to separatist Quebec premier Bernard Landry, arguing that the Tories were being hypocritical in criticizing Ms. Turmel.
“We wonder why politicians who live in glass houses are throwing stones,” the party wrote.
Mr. Lebel's spokeswoman wrote in an email Monday that Mr. Lebel “has been transparent with his constituents” about his Bloc past. She said he joined the Conservative Party in 2007 because of Stephen Harper's vision for the economy.
Monday, August 8, 2011
A group of Eritrean refugees rejected by an untrained visa officer in Cairo who quizzed them on the Holy Spirit are getting another interview and chance to come to Canada.
WINNIPEG - A group of Eritrean refugees rejected by an untrained visa officer in Cairo who quizzed them on the Holy Spirit are getting another interview and chance to come to Canada.
After taking the federal government to court and winning, the Canadian Council for Refugees learned this week that the 37 people she turned away will be interviewed again at the Canadian Embassy in Cairo in September.
``That's the most you can hope for - to strike down an incorrect decision and send it back to be heard by a different visa officer,'' said Janet Dench, executive director of the Canadian refugee advocacy group.
``You hope the next determination is soon and by a visa officer who is fully informed on the situation in Eritrea and understands properly (what she's doing).''
Even after winning in court, the group had to push the federal government for the refugees' cases to be heard in a reasonable amount of time, said Andrew Brouwer, the Toronto lawyer for the Canadian Council for Refugees.
``In the meantime, our clients continue to live in very difficult and dangerous circumstances in Cairo and Khartoum,'' he said.
Several of the refugees were being sponsored privately by Winnipeg's Pentecostal Eritrean Church. More than a year ago it complained to the federal immigration minister about a visa officer in Cairo. She was dismissing the Eritreans' cases because she didn't believe they were Pentecostal, the group said.
Others complained about her as well, and the Canadian Council for Refugees decided to challenge her decisions in the Federal Court of Canada.
This spring, the court ruled that the visa officer lacked adequate training and support. She made poor decisions in dozens of cases for more than a year - even after the Canadian Council for Refugees alerted Immigration Minister Jason Kenney's office to a troubling pattern at the Cairo office involving the officer.
Kenney ignored concerns raised by the ``reputable organization,'' the judge ruled.
``. . . Common sense and fairness leads me to conclude that the minister ought to have taken the complaint more seriously,'' Justice Judith Snider said in her decision. She awarded the refugee council costs, and the court ordered the federal government to deliver monthly updates on the refugees' cases to show they were being reviewed and moving forward.
``We were really very disappointed this had to come all the way to a federal- court decision,'' said Dench in Montreal.
``We had alerted federal government on a discreet, off-the-record basis . . . and thought that would be enough. When that did not lead to anything, we filed a report that led to nothing at all.''
So, the council took their concerns to federal court to have the refugees' cases reviewed.
Early on in the case, the visa officer in Cairo was cross-examined by teleconference. That was a ``watershed moment,'' the federal court judge wrote, when the ``magnitude and existence of some of the errors should have been apparent to the minister.''
The visa officer's lack of training was obvious, said Dench.
``Many of her answers made it very clear she did not understand her legal obligations,'' she said. ``It was quite astonishing.'' For instance, if the visa officer didn't believe an Eritrean was Pentecostal, she'd reject them on that basis alone without considering any other grounds, as the law requires, said Dench. ``Many of her answers made it very clear she did not understand her legal obligations.''
Instead of addressing the problem then and there and saving litigation costs, the federal government proceeded in court and lost, Dench said. It's added another year ``in limbo'' for the refugees who escaped Eritrea.
They're struggling to survive in chaotic Cairo waiting for the Canadian Embassy to deal with their cases.
``For the most part, refugees overseas do not have access to a lawyer to represent them at federal court,'' said Dench. ``If a visa officer is not properly trained and makes a bad decision it's usually never challenged.''
The 37 Eritreans whose cases were went to federal court are the fortunate few, said Dench.
Read more: http://www.canada.com/immigration+interviews+ordered+Eritreans+grilled+suspicious+visa+officer/5210877/story.html#ixzz1UQB35Ukw
After taking the federal government to court and winning, the Canadian Council for Refugees learned this week that the 37 people she turned away will be interviewed again at the Canadian Embassy in Cairo in September.
``That's the most you can hope for - to strike down an incorrect decision and send it back to be heard by a different visa officer,'' said Janet Dench, executive director of the Canadian refugee advocacy group.
``You hope the next determination is soon and by a visa officer who is fully informed on the situation in Eritrea and understands properly (what she's doing).''
Even after winning in court, the group had to push the federal government for the refugees' cases to be heard in a reasonable amount of time, said Andrew Brouwer, the Toronto lawyer for the Canadian Council for Refugees.
``In the meantime, our clients continue to live in very difficult and dangerous circumstances in Cairo and Khartoum,'' he said.
Several of the refugees were being sponsored privately by Winnipeg's Pentecostal Eritrean Church. More than a year ago it complained to the federal immigration minister about a visa officer in Cairo. She was dismissing the Eritreans' cases because she didn't believe they were Pentecostal, the group said.
Others complained about her as well, and the Canadian Council for Refugees decided to challenge her decisions in the Federal Court of Canada.
This spring, the court ruled that the visa officer lacked adequate training and support. She made poor decisions in dozens of cases for more than a year - even after the Canadian Council for Refugees alerted Immigration Minister Jason Kenney's office to a troubling pattern at the Cairo office involving the officer.
Kenney ignored concerns raised by the ``reputable organization,'' the judge ruled.
``. . . Common sense and fairness leads me to conclude that the minister ought to have taken the complaint more seriously,'' Justice Judith Snider said in her decision. She awarded the refugee council costs, and the court ordered the federal government to deliver monthly updates on the refugees' cases to show they were being reviewed and moving forward.
``We were really very disappointed this had to come all the way to a federal- court decision,'' said Dench in Montreal.
``We had alerted federal government on a discreet, off-the-record basis . . . and thought that would be enough. When that did not lead to anything, we filed a report that led to nothing at all.''
So, the council took their concerns to federal court to have the refugees' cases reviewed.
Early on in the case, the visa officer in Cairo was cross-examined by teleconference. That was a ``watershed moment,'' the federal court judge wrote, when the ``magnitude and existence of some of the errors should have been apparent to the minister.''
The visa officer's lack of training was obvious, said Dench.
``Many of her answers made it very clear she did not understand her legal obligations,'' she said. ``It was quite astonishing.'' For instance, if the visa officer didn't believe an Eritrean was Pentecostal, she'd reject them on that basis alone without considering any other grounds, as the law requires, said Dench. ``Many of her answers made it very clear she did not understand her legal obligations.''
Instead of addressing the problem then and there and saving litigation costs, the federal government proceeded in court and lost, Dench said. It's added another year ``in limbo'' for the refugees who escaped Eritrea.
They're struggling to survive in chaotic Cairo waiting for the Canadian Embassy to deal with their cases.
``For the most part, refugees overseas do not have access to a lawyer to represent them at federal court,'' said Dench. ``If a visa officer is not properly trained and makes a bad decision it's usually never challenged.''
The 37 Eritreans whose cases were went to federal court are the fortunate few, said Dench.
Read more: http://www.canada.com/immigration+interviews+ordered+Eritreans+grilled+suspicious+visa+officer/5210877/story.html#ixzz1UQB35Ukw
Sunday, August 7, 2011
the unproven CSIS leak in the Charkaoui and Abousfian Abdelrazik cases.
The report is chilling: a summary of a conversation intercepted by CSIS recounts two men plotting to blow up a plane flying from Montreal to France.
But with it comes questions. Both men successfully fought long court battles with the Canadian government, over allegations of terrorism links, and Ottawa never persuaded a court such plotting had occurred.
Lawyers for the two men insist the leak of the previously unreported summary to a newspaper this week is a defamatory smear using what was previously described as “unproven” information by a Federal Court judge, suggesting it was intended to undermine efforts of one of them to get his name removed from a no-fly list.
But Immigration Minister Jason Kenney argued that those who doubt the government’s pursuit of people alleged to have terrorist ties should be more skeptical about the suspects.
“I read the protected confidential dossiers on such individuals, and I can tell you that, without commenting on any one individual, some of this intelligence makes the hair stand up on the back of your neck,” he said. “I just think people should be patient and thoughtful and give the government and its agencies the benefit of the doubt.”
The Montreal newspaper La Presse this week reported on a summary of an intercepted conversation in the summer of 2000 in which two men, Adil Charkaoui and Abousfian Abdelrazik, appear to discuss ways to blow up a passenger flight from Montreal. CSIS would not confirm the authenticity of the document, a four-page 2004 report to Transport Canada security officials, but asked La Presse to withhold the name of agents named in it, the newspaper reported.
The summary quotes Mr. Charkaoui as describing how six people could register separately for a flight from Montreal to France, taking different seats; then Mr. Abelrazik saying it would be “a problem” and is dangerous; and Mr. Charkaoui appears to suggest explosives could be planted in a pen in the form of a key-ring. “It’s something very pure, 100 per cent. Throw that in a plane and the whole thing blows up,” Mr. Charkaoui is quoted as saying, according to La Presse.
It’s not clear why, if the recording existed, it would not have been used in secret court hearings against Mr. Charkaoui. CSIS had a policy of destroying recordings and transcripts of intercepted conversations and keeping only summaries until ordered by the Supreme Court to change practices in 2008. Mr. Charkaoui won a six-year battle against detention and house arrest under immigration laws in 2009 after CSIS withdrew evidence rather than provide information that it considered sensitive to back it up.
In the case of Mr. Abdelrazik, a Canadian citizen stranded in Sudan for six years before a court ordered the government in 2009 to let him come home, it is the first public report of a specific allegation of terror plotting.
The United Nations released a summary of allegations that he provided “administrative and logistical support” to al-Qaeda. But they were based on his travels, including a claim, which he denies, that he attended an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, and on his association with others, including Millenium bomber Ahmed Ressam, at whose trial he testified.
But La Presse reported that the document it obtained stated that a 2001 search of his car found traces of RDX, an ingredient used in high-tech explosives, as well as summarizing the conversation.
Mr. Abdelrazik’s lawyer, Paul Champ, said a decision is expected soon on efforts to get the United Nations Security Council to remove his client from a no-fly list. “All of a sudden this document comes out?” he said.
The conversation appears to been aired before, in Mr. Charkaoui’s case.
Mr. Champ and Mr. Charkaoui’s lawyer, Johanne Doyon, say it is the three-person conversation referred to in a 2007 La Presse story about Mr. Charkaoui and a man named Hashim Tahir – an account a judge called “unproven.” That 2007 story cited another secret document that indicated Mr. Charkaoui and Mr. Tahir discussed a plot to blow up a plane flying from Montreal to Europe.
Mr. Charkaoui, a Moroccan-born landed immigrant, was then fighting the security certificate under which he was detained from 2003 to 2005, and kept at home under bail restrictions such as a requirement to wear an electronic-monitoring bracelet, until 2009.
The Federal Court judge in that case, Mr. Justice Simon Noel, responded to the 2007 story by revealing in 2008 that “the court has unproven information concerning Mr. Charkaoui to the effect that, at a meeting in June, 2000, he discussed with two people hijacking a commercial aircraft for violent purposes.”
La Presse did not mention Mr. Tahir in the story published on Friday.
But Mr. Champ said he separately obtained a copy of the document, and it mentions Mr. Tahir. Mr. Charkaoui’s lawyer, Johanne Doyon, insisted it is the same 2007 allegation that Justice Noel referred to as “unproven.”
But with it comes questions. Both men successfully fought long court battles with the Canadian government, over allegations of terrorism links, and Ottawa never persuaded a court such plotting had occurred.
Lawyers for the two men insist the leak of the previously unreported summary to a newspaper this week is a defamatory smear using what was previously described as “unproven” information by a Federal Court judge, suggesting it was intended to undermine efforts of one of them to get his name removed from a no-fly list.
But Immigration Minister Jason Kenney argued that those who doubt the government’s pursuit of people alleged to have terrorist ties should be more skeptical about the suspects.
“I read the protected confidential dossiers on such individuals, and I can tell you that, without commenting on any one individual, some of this intelligence makes the hair stand up on the back of your neck,” he said. “I just think people should be patient and thoughtful and give the government and its agencies the benefit of the doubt.”
The Montreal newspaper La Presse this week reported on a summary of an intercepted conversation in the summer of 2000 in which two men, Adil Charkaoui and Abousfian Abdelrazik, appear to discuss ways to blow up a passenger flight from Montreal. CSIS would not confirm the authenticity of the document, a four-page 2004 report to Transport Canada security officials, but asked La Presse to withhold the name of agents named in it, the newspaper reported.
The summary quotes Mr. Charkaoui as describing how six people could register separately for a flight from Montreal to France, taking different seats; then Mr. Abelrazik saying it would be “a problem” and is dangerous; and Mr. Charkaoui appears to suggest explosives could be planted in a pen in the form of a key-ring. “It’s something very pure, 100 per cent. Throw that in a plane and the whole thing blows up,” Mr. Charkaoui is quoted as saying, according to La Presse.
It’s not clear why, if the recording existed, it would not have been used in secret court hearings against Mr. Charkaoui. CSIS had a policy of destroying recordings and transcripts of intercepted conversations and keeping only summaries until ordered by the Supreme Court to change practices in 2008. Mr. Charkaoui won a six-year battle against detention and house arrest under immigration laws in 2009 after CSIS withdrew evidence rather than provide information that it considered sensitive to back it up.
In the case of Mr. Abdelrazik, a Canadian citizen stranded in Sudan for six years before a court ordered the government in 2009 to let him come home, it is the first public report of a specific allegation of terror plotting.
The United Nations released a summary of allegations that he provided “administrative and logistical support” to al-Qaeda. But they were based on his travels, including a claim, which he denies, that he attended an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, and on his association with others, including Millenium bomber Ahmed Ressam, at whose trial he testified.
But La Presse reported that the document it obtained stated that a 2001 search of his car found traces of RDX, an ingredient used in high-tech explosives, as well as summarizing the conversation.
Mr. Abdelrazik’s lawyer, Paul Champ, said a decision is expected soon on efforts to get the United Nations Security Council to remove his client from a no-fly list. “All of a sudden this document comes out?” he said.
The conversation appears to been aired before, in Mr. Charkaoui’s case.
Mr. Champ and Mr. Charkaoui’s lawyer, Johanne Doyon, say it is the three-person conversation referred to in a 2007 La Presse story about Mr. Charkaoui and a man named Hashim Tahir – an account a judge called “unproven.” That 2007 story cited another secret document that indicated Mr. Charkaoui and Mr. Tahir discussed a plot to blow up a plane flying from Montreal to Europe.
Mr. Charkaoui, a Moroccan-born landed immigrant, was then fighting the security certificate under which he was detained from 2003 to 2005, and kept at home under bail restrictions such as a requirement to wear an electronic-monitoring bracelet, until 2009.
The Federal Court judge in that case, Mr. Justice Simon Noel, responded to the 2007 story by revealing in 2008 that “the court has unproven information concerning Mr. Charkaoui to the effect that, at a meeting in June, 2000, he discussed with two people hijacking a commercial aircraft for violent purposes.”
La Presse did not mention Mr. Tahir in the story published on Friday.
But Mr. Champ said he separately obtained a copy of the document, and it mentions Mr. Tahir. Mr. Charkaoui’s lawyer, Johanne Doyon, insisted it is the same 2007 allegation that Justice Noel referred to as “unproven.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)