Canada (Premier ministre) c. Khadr, 2010 CSC 3, (29 janvier 2010)
Le pourvoi etait accueilli en partie.
K a droit à une réparation en vertu du par. 24(1) de la Charte. La réparation demandée par K — une ordonnance intimant au Canada de demander son rapatriement — est suffisamment liée à la violation de la Charte survenue en 2003 et 2004 parce que les incidences de cette violation persistent jusqu’à présent et pourraient influer sur son procès lorsqu’il sera finalement tenu. Bien que le gouvernement doive disposer d’une certaine marge de manœuvre lorsqu’il décide de quelle manière il doit s’acquitter des obligations relevant de sa prérogative en matière de relations étrangères, l’exécutif n’est pas à l’abri du contrôle constitutionnel. Les tribunaux ont compétence, et sont tenus d’exercer cette compétence, pour déterminer si la prérogative invoquée par la Couronne existe véritablement et, dans l’affirmative, pour décider si son exercice contrevient à la Charte ou à d’autres normes constitutionnelles. Lorsque cela s’avère nécessaire, les tribunaux ont aussi compétence pour donner à la branche exécutive du gouvernement des directives spécifiques. En l’espèce, le juge de première instance s’est fondé sur des considérations erronées en ordonnant au gouvernement de demander le rapatriement de K, compte tenu de la responsabilité constitutionnelle de l’exécutif de prendre les décisions concernant les affaires étrangères et du dossier qui n’est pas suffisamment probant. La réparation appropriée, en l’espèce, consiste à déclarer que les droits de K garantis par la Charte ont été violés, et à laisser au gouvernement le soin de décider de quelle manière il convient de répondre à la lumière de l’information dont il dispose actuellement, de sa responsabilité en matière d’affaires étrangères et de la Charte.
Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr, 2010 SCC 3, (January 29, 2010)
The appeal was allowed in part.
K is entitled to a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter. The remedy sought by K — an order that Canada request his repatriation — is sufficiently connected to the Charter breach that occurred in 2003 and 2004 because of the continuing effect of this breach into the present and its possible effect on K’s ultimate trial. While the government must have flexibility in deciding how its duties under the royal prerogative over foreign relations are discharged, the executive is not exempt from constitutional scrutiny. Courts have the jurisdiction and the duty to determine whether a prerogative power asserted by the Crown exists; if so, whether its exercise infringes the Charter or other constitutional norms; and, where necessary, to give specific direction to the executive branch of the government. Here, the trial judge misdirected himself in ordering the government to request K’s repatriation, in view of the constitutional responsibility of the executive to make decisions on matters of foreign affairs and the inconclusive state of the record. The appropriate remedy in this case is to declare that K’s Charter rights were violated, leaving it to the government to decide how best to respond in light of current information, its responsibility over foreign affairs, and the Charter.
Press comments from National Post, CP, NYT, CBC and Cyberpresse.
A unanimous decision by the Court.
Just a small "slawish" remark, did other than me noticed the insertion of the URL of video clip at para. 7. I think that this is the first time the Court did this. I guess that the next step will be the inclusion of multimedia content in the body of the reasons for judgment whew appropriate.
Daniel.
Good catch Daniel. This is historic. Even if the decision itself is pragmatic but a good discussion of the prerogative powers over foreign affairs.
And this is the third time in a few months that the SCC has cited to ZACC – the South African Constitutional Court. And to a US Military Commission decision on the web.
Daniel: Is there a reason the link is not live?
It seems very odd that the link is coloured blue AND underlined, but not coded for linking & effectively adding the additional context that was intended. We should 'double jump' our historical firsts here and make the link clickable!
Daniel, Steve: it looks like the problem with the link is that it has trapped the trailing comma within it. Can that be simply edited out?
(I've noticed that some people have the practice of using no punctuation immediately following a link in text — perhaps for this reason. If punctuation is needed, it comes after a space following the link.)
Actually, comma or no comma, there isn't an 'A HREF' tag embedded in the code. Right now it's just a stylized text.