News from ICLMG

Open letter: Over 130 members of Canadian legal community call on Trudeau government to deny French extradition request in case of Hassan Diab

In an Open Letter calling for an end to fifteen years of manifest injustice in the case of Canadian citizen Hassan Diab, over 130 members of the Canadian legal community – including law professors, retired judges, practicing and retired lawyers, and legal researchers from across the country – have called on Prime Minister Trudeau to deny the French government’s second request that Dr. Diab be extradited to France.

The letter reminds the Prime Minister of his comments in 2018, after Hassan Diab returned to Canada following his earlier extradition. Dr. Diab had been held in a maximum-security prison in Paris for more than three years, almost entirely in solitary confinement and he was never officially charged or brought to trial. Prime Minister Trudeau stated that what had happened to him “never should have happened” and that steps would be taken to “make sure that it never happens again.”

The letter also summarizes the numerous, mounting grave concerns about fairness and human rights violations that have marked every stage of Hassan Diab’s case, beginning when the French government first sought his extradition in 2008 in relation to a 1980 terrorist bombing of a synagogue in Paris that killed four people and injured 47 others. Dr. Diab has asserted his innocence from the outset.

Read the full media release here. The full letter is below.

June 8, 2023

The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau
Prime Minister of Canada
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2

Dear Prime Minister:

As you know, for years many Canadians have been alarmed by the ongoing nightmarish ordeal of Dr. Hassan Diab, who was unjustly accused and has now been wrongfully convicted for a terrorist bombing that took place in Paris in 1980. In 2014, Dr. Diab was extradited to France on the basis of handwriting evidence that even the Ontario Superior Court Justice who committed him found to be “convoluted, very confusing, [and] with conclusions that are suspect.”

Dr. Diab was then subjected to solitary confinement for over three years—before being released following nearly three years of extensive investigation by two of France’s most experienced juges d’instruction (Jean-Marc Herbaut and Richard Foltzer) who concluded unequivocally that there existed no evidence to support sending Dr. Diab to trial (“Attendu qu’il n’existe dès lors pas de charges suffisantes contre Hassan Naim DIAB […] Ordonnons en conséquence la mise en liberté immédiate de Hassan Naim DIAB” (Jean-Marc HERBAUT et Richard FOLTZER: Ordonnance de non-lieu, p. 72 (le 12 janvier 2018)).

Five years have gone by and Dr. Diab’s situation has become even more shocking. Incredibly, in April of this year the French Special Assize Court (Cour d’assises spéciale) proceeded with a prosecution of Dr. Diab, in absentia, and he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. An arrest warrant was also issued (“CONDAMNE, à la majorité, Hassan DIAB à la peine de la réclusion criminelle à la perpétuité; DÉCERNE mandat d’arrêt à l’encontre de Hassan DIAB.” (Cour d’assises de Paris, Arrêt criminel, No 21/0073, du 21 avril 2023)). This was despite clear previous acknowledgment by French prosecutors and courts that the main evidence said to prove his guilt—a handwriting analysis—was methodologically flawed and amounted to worthless evidence. Yet this same evidence was admitted at the trial, along with unsourced “intelligence” the origin of which could not be traced by the prosecution.

Moreover, according to French media reports and personal communications from supporters of Dr. Diab who attended the trial, the court ignored all exonerating evidence, including evidence that he was in Lebanon when the bomber was in Paris for at least 12 consecutive days from Sept 22 to Oct. 3, 1980; and dismissed the findings of the juges d’instruction that there was no valid case for conviction. Journalists who were not witnesses to any of the relevant events were called to give their “expert” opinions of guilt at the trial. Incredibly, there is no written transcript or recording of the court proceedings.

To be clear, the only new evidence adduced at trial was evidence strongly showing innocence—forensic fingerprint evidence on both the hotel card and police statement of the bomber that excluded Dr Diab, and evidence that he was in Lebanon when the bomber was in Paris. Observers at the trial noted that the Presiding Judge was uninterested in the defence evidence.

The verdict was decided by a majority of the five judges, meaning that one or maybe two judges opposed the ‘guilty’ verdict. There is no jury system available in the French anti-terrorist court and, following an in absentia verdict, there is no right of appeal. [Code de procédure pénale, Article 698-6 (Modifié par LOI no. 2021-1729 du 22 décembre 2021, art.15(V)]

Unsurprisingly, and as noted, a conviction was entered, and an arrest warrant was issued. On April 27, 2023, Senator Marc Gold, the Representative of the Government in the Senate, stated publicly that France has requested Dr. Diab’s extradition. There is great political pressure in France for someone, apparently anyone, to be convicted for this terrible crime; it appears a conviction was inevitable, despite the lack of an actual case. In the view of the undersigned, this cannot stand.

Prime Minister, in its decision regarding Dr. Diab’s initial extradition (France v. Diab, 2014 ONCA 374), the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that extradition would be Charter-compliant for two important reasons: France was ready for trial, so Dr. Diab would not “languish in prison”; and there was no “real risk” that torture-derived evidence (via intelligence sources) would be used against him. Both of those have now come to pass. Dr. Diab did, indeed, languish in prison, before the case against him collapsed; and the intelligence evidence adduced at trial was admitted despite the prosecution’s acknowledgment that it was impossible to know its origin, raising the real concern, in fact the clear likelihood, that it was derived from torture.

We acknowledge that France is a longstanding treaty partner of Canada, but in this case, at nearly every turn, the French government’s actions have been in bad faith. The manifest unfairness of Dr. Diab’s trial raises the concern that France is in breach of its fair trial obligations under Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Canada and France are both parties. It further raises the prospect that, were Canada to extradite Dr. Diab, it would similarly be in breach of the Covenant by extraditing an individual to face a manifestly unfair criminal justice process.

Prime Minister, when Dr. Diab returned from France in 2018, you said that what had happened to him “never should have happened,” and that efforts would be made to ensure it did not happen again. We respectfully ask your government to keep your promise. As Amnesty International stated in March 2023, “Justice does not…come by pursuing a man against whom both the Canadian and French justice systems have already found there to be a lack of credible evidence.”

Extradition is an important tool in combating transnational crime, but it should not and must not be used as an instrument of persecution and scapegoating. France’s request for Canada to extradite Dr. Diab must be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert J. Currie, K.C.
Professor of Law, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Alex Neve, O.C.
Barrister and Solicitor, Adjunct Professor of International Human Rights Law, Ottawa, Ontario

Co-signatories:

Sharry Aiken, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University, Toronto, Ontario

John Packer, Director of the Human Rights Research and Education Centre, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario

Richard Moon, Distinguished University Professor, University of Windsor, Toronto, Ontario

Ardi Imseis, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University, Ottawa, Ontario

Mohammad Fadel, Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, Ontario

Faisal Bhabha, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto, Ontario

Obiora Okafor, Professor, Toronto, Ontario

Mary Ann Higgs, Lawyer, Kingston, Ontario

Ashwini Vasanthakumar, Queen’s National Scholar & Associate Professor, Queen’s Law School, Kingston, Ontario

Vasanthi Venkatesh, Associate Professor, University of Windsor, Faculty of Law, Toronto, Ontario

Dania Majid, Arab Canadian Lawyers Association, Toronto, Ontario

Martha Jackman, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario

Colin Grey, Associate Professor, Queen’s University Faculty of Law, Toronto, Ontario

Eric Tucker, Emeritus Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto, Ontario

Jared Will, Lawyer, Toronto, Ontario

Reem Bahdi, Associate Professor, Windsor Law, University of Windor, Windsor, Ontario

Harini Sivalingam, Lawyer, Toronto, Ontario

Valerie Oosterveld, Professor, Faculty of Law, Western University, London, Ontario

Dr. Gary Botting, Author, Canadian Extradition Law Practice, Hope, British Columbia

Denise Reaume, Professor Emerita, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

Maseeh Haseeb, PhD candidate in the Faculty of Law, Queens University, Ottawa, Ontario

Aditya Rao, Lawyer, Ottawa, Ontario

François Crépeau, Professor of Public International Law, Faculty of Law, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec

André Capretti, Lawyer, Montréal, Québec

Irina Ceric, Assistant Professor, University of Windsor Faculty of Law, Toronto, Ontario

Michael Byers, Professor & Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia

Anna S, Lawyer, London, Ontario

Pearl Eliadis, Lawyer & Associate Professor (professional), Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec

Professor Errol Mendes, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario

Dr. Adelina Iftene, Associate Professor, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Lisa Taylor, JD, LLM – academic, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Robin Parker, Lawyer, Toronto, Ontario

Joseph Rikhof, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Section, Justice Canada (retired); Adjunct Professor, Common Law Faculty, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario

Joanna Harrington, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta

Professor D.A. Rollie Thompson KC, Professor Emeritus of Law, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Mitchell Goldberg, Lawyer, Montreal, Quebec

Hilary Young, Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick

David Fraser, Lawyer, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Emilie Taman, Lawyer, Ottawa, Ontario

Katie Sykes, Faculty of Law, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, British Columbia

John D Gregory, retired lawyer, Toronto, Ontario

Hon. Marilou McPhedran, Independent Senator – Manitoba, Ottawa, Ontario

Michael Lynk, Former United Nations Human Rights Special Rapporteur, London, Ontario

Charis Kamphuis, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, British Columbia

Shelley Hounsell-Gray, K.C., Lawyer, Bedford, Nova Scotia

Christopher Waters, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario

Nicole O’Byrne, Associate Professor Faculty of Law University of New Brunswick, Fredericton New Brunswick

Raphael Vagliano, International human rights lawyer, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Colton Fehr, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, British Columbia

Nicholas Pope, Human Rights Lawyer, Hameed Law, Ottawa, Ontario

Jamie Liew, Full Professor, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Ottawa, Ontario

Jolene Hansell, Criminal Lawyer and Part-Time Professor at the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario

Rabiat Akande, Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, Vaughan, Ontario

A. Wayne MacKay, CM, KC, Professor Emeritus of Law, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Chantal Tie, University of Ottawa, part-time Professor, Immigration, Wakefield, Quebec

Hugh Kindred, Professor Emeritus, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Donna Davis, Lawyer, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Benjamin Perryman, Assistant Professor, University of New Brunswick Faculty of Law, Fredericton, New Brunswick

Khalid M. Elgazzar, Lawyer, Ottawa, Ontario

Seth Weinstein, Lawyer, Author of Prosecuting and Defending Extradition Cases, Toronto, Ontario

Geneviève Paul, International human rights jurist, Montréal, Québec

Leilani Farha, Global Director, The Shift, Ottawa, Ontario

Paul A. Falvo, Legal counsel, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories

Ammad Anwar, Partner, Anwar & Riou Law Office, Unity, Saskatchewan

Syed Rizvi, Affinity Law PC, Milton, Ontario

Jouman El-Asmar, Lawyer, EL-ASMAR LEGAL, Edmonton, Alberta

Barbara Jackman, Lawyer, Toronto, Ontario

Sara Wharton, Associate Professor, University of Windsor, Faculty of Law, Windsor, Ontario

Penelope Simons, Professor and Gordon F.Henderson Chair in Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario

Amanda Ghahremani, International criminal lawyer, Toronto, Ontario

Naiomi Metallic, Associate Professor, Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Gregory Willoughby, Immigration & Refugee Lawyer, London, Ontario

Tashi Alford-Duguid, Lawyer, Toronto, Ontario

Peggy Malpass, Retired lawyer, Adjunct Professor of Law Ottawa U, Toronto, Ontario

Janet van der Vink, Immigration lawyer, Ottawa, Ontario

Érick Sullivan, Lawyer, Canadian Partnership for International Justice, Québec, Québec

Mark Kersten , Associate Professor, Criminology & Criminal Justice, University of the Fraser Valley, Vancouver, British Columbia

Lee Seshagiri, Managing Lawyer, Appeals Office – Nova Scotia Legal Aid, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Eric V. Gottardi, K.C., Lawyer, Peck and Company, Vancouver, British Columbia

Frank Addario, Addario Law Group, Toronto, Ontario

Professor Maureen Duffy, Associate Professor, University of Calgary Faculty of Law, Calgary, Alberta

Meghan McDermott , Lawyer, BC Civil Liberties Association, Vancouver, British Columbia

David VanderZwaag , Professor of Law, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Sherif M. Foda, Foda Law, Toronto, Ontario

Brock Martland, KC, Criminal Barrister, Martland & Saulnier, Vancouver, British Columbia

Mehrak Hazaveh, Lawyer, Ottawa, Ontario

Philip Girard, Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto, Ontario

Sarah Lindsay MacLeod, Lawyer, Burchell Wickwire Bryson LLP, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Gib van Ert, Lawyer, Ottawa, Ontario

Arash Ghiassi, Lawyer, Toronto, Ontario

Shakir Rahim, Lawyer, Toronto, Ontario

Laïla Demirdache, Lawyer, Ottawa, Ontario

Jessica Chandrashekar, Lawyer, Toronto, Ontario

Maeve McMahon, Associate Professor, Law and Legal Studies, Carleton University (retired), Ottawa, Ontario

Hon. Elizabeth Roscoe, Retired Justice, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, Upper Malagash, Nova Scotia

Sarah Douglas, Lawyer, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Yazan Matarieh, Lawyer, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Udani Perera , Perera Legal Group, Lawyer, Calgary, Alberta

Audrey Macklin, Professor, Faculty of Law and Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

Sharmin L. Rahman, Lawyer, BDO Law LLP, Toronto, Ontario

Evan Fox-Decent, Professor of Law and Canada Research Chair, McGill University, Faculty of Law, Montreal, Quebec

Mariana Valverde, Professor Emeritus, Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

Paul Champ, Human Rights Lawyer, Champ Law, Ottawa, Ontario

Lex Gill, Litigator and Course Lecturer (McGill University), Montreal, Québec

Yavar Hameed, Human Rights Lawyer, Hameed Law, Ottawa, Ontario

Lisa Dufraimont, Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto, Ontario

Stepan Wood, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Law, Society & Sustainability, Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia

Jonathan Shapiro, Senior Instructor (Associate Professor), Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Lisa Kerr, Associate Professor, Queen’s University, Faculty of Law, Kingston, Ontario

Ibrahim Danial, lawyer; Director, Downtown (Toronto) Muslim Professional Network, Mississauga, Ontario

Janet van der Vink, Immigration lawyer, Ottawa, Ontario

François Larocque, Professeur titulaire, Faculté de droit, Section de common law, Université d’Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario

Mary Jane Mossman, Professor Emerita, Osgoode Hall Law School, Toronto, Ontario

Doris Buss, Professor of Law, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario

Jillian Rogin, Assistant Professor and lawyer, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor, Hamilton, Ontario

Stephen Tasson, Department of Law and Legal Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario

Natasha Bakht, Professor, Shirley Greenberg Chair for Women and the Legal Profession, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario

Harsha Walia, Author, Vancouver, British Columbia

Craig Scott, Professor of Law & Associate Dean (Academic), Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

Fannie Lafontaine, Canada Research Chair on International Criminal Justice and Human Rights, Université Laval, Faculté de droit, Québec, Québec

Pantea Jafari, Jafari Law, Chair of the CBA Immigration Section’s Anti-Racism Committee, Toronto, Ontario

Katie Joyce, Lawyer, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Amy Brubacher, Lawyer, Don Valley Community Legal Services, Toronto, Ontario

John Liss, lawyer, Toronto, Ontario

Talia Joundi, Lawyer, Toronto, Ontario

Amanda Aziz, Lawyer, Vancouver, British Columbia

Dimitri Lascaris, Lawyer and Journalist, President of Green Left Canada, Montreal, Quebec

Melanie Adrian, Associate Professor, Department of Law and Legal Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario

Janne Burton, Lawyer, Retired, Toronto, Ontario

ICLMG reacts to troubling court decision on Canadians indefinitely detained in northeast Syria

OTTAWA, June 6, 2023 – The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG), based in Ottawa, released the following statement today regarding the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Canada v. Boloh 1(a):

The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision on Canadians indefinitely imprisoned in northeastern Syria is deeply troubling. The ruling ignores the clear and undeniable fact that the Canadian government’s actions (and inaction) amount to leaving its citizens in life threatening, indefinite detention akin to torture. In its original ruling, the Federal Court found that the government had violated section 6(1) of the Charter and the country’s obligations under international law by essentially condemning these Canadians to exile and banishment. This remains the case.

The Canadian government’s unrelenting efforts to avoid their duty under both the Charter and international law is unacceptable. Canada must urgently repatriate all Canadian detainees – men, women and children – and, in the case of Canadian children, their parents as well.

TAKE ACTION

Since you’re here…

… we have a small favour to ask. Here at ICLMG, we are working very hard to protect and promote human rights and civil liberties in the context of the so-called “war on terror” in Canada. We do not receive any financial support from any federal, provincial or municipal governments or political parties. You can become our patron on Patreon and get rewards in exchange for your support. You can give as little as $1/month (that’s only $12/year!) and you can unsubscribe at any time. Any donations will go a long way to support our work.You can also make a one-time donation or donate monthly via Paypal by clicking on the button below. On the fence about giving? Check out our Achievements and Gains since we were created in 2002. Thank you for your generosity!

New CBSA and RCMP watchdog: ICLMG’s concerns and recommendations

ICLMG has submitted a brief on Bill C-20 (An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments) to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

The bill would would reform the existing review and complaints mechanism for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and create, for the first time ever, a dedicated review and complaints process for the activities of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). It would do so by transforming the existing Civilian Review and Complaints Commission (CRCC), renaming it the Public Complaints and Review Commission (PCRC).

Existing watchdogs and their limitations

Significant change was brought about with the establishment of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) in 2019, creating the first overarching body empowered to review Canada’s national security activities. Importantly, this included the national security related activities of the CBSA, subjecting this federal law enforcement agency to any form of independent review for the first time. However, NSIRA was never intended to provide complete coverage of CBSA’s activities, and considerable gaps remain in accountability and review of Canada’s immigration and border policing activities.

Beyond independent review and investigation of public complaints of the CBSA, it has been clear for many years that the review and complaints process for the RCMP has also been in dire need of reform. Long delays in review and investigation completion, often caused by refusal on the part of the RCMP to respond to interim reports, undermined the credibility of the review process; this was further worsened by the RCMP not following through on implementing recommendations, along with the under-resourcing of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission (CRCC).

The many areas of concern in Bill C-20

Bill C-20 would address many of these concerns, the most crucial being the ongoing and inexcusable absence of an independent review body for the CBSA. However, there remain key areas where the bill continues to fall short and would require amendment at committee. Further, the study of Bill C-20 presents an important opportunity to examine whether the hybrid NSIRA-CRCC review and complaints investigation of the RCMP has proven effective and where there are areas for improvement. Finally, while not included in the legislation, we would urge the committee to also examine the resourcing needed for the newly proposed Public Complaints and Review Commission to carry out its expanded mandate.

Our brief examines the following key points:

Complaints process
Referrals of national security complaints and reviews
Rules mandating the discontinuance of complaints investigations and reviews
Investigational independence
Recourse and remedies
Restrictions on judicial review
Reporting, transparency and other concerns

You can read our full brief here, where we go into detail on each area. Below is a summary of our recommendations to the committee.

ICLMG’s recommendations

We made the following 29 recommendations for amendments to the committee:

Amend ss. 38 and 52 to allow for public-interest third party complaints.
Amend s. 33 to allow for the submission of systemic complaints.
Amend ss. 52(1)(a) and 38(1)(a) to remove “trivial” from the reasons a complaint could be rejected.
Amend s. 33(8)(b) to read, “the Agency or any current CBSA employee” in order for the public to submit complaints to CBSA employees
That a definition of “national security” be added to s. 2(1); alternatively, that a working definition be included in a MoU between NSIRA and the new PCRC.
That s. 10 be amended to allow the PCRC to make rules related to the process for referring national security related complaints and reviews to NSIRA and that these rules be shared publicly on the PCRC website; alternatively, that Bill C-20 be amended to require the PCRC to enter into a MoU with NSIRA, and that the MoU be shared publicly.
That s. 13(2) be amended to require information regarding the number and nature of complaints and reviews that the PCRC has referred to NSIRA be included in the commission’s annual report.
That the committee determine the best path to amend the NSIRA Act to allow the review agency to refer complaints back to the PCRC if it determines that, while the complaint is well-founded, that it is not closely related to national security.
That Bill C-20 be amended to remove the requirement to terminate complaint investigations that could be dealt with under other processes or Acts, and to instead grant the PCRC discretion to refuse to terminate an investigation where there exists another “comparable, reasonably available and more appropriate” process. Further, the bill should allow for complainants to challenge such a decision within a reasonable amount of time following the communication of the PCRC’s decision.
That provisions regarding the rejection or termination of reviews or complaints based on the premise that they “compromise or seriously hinder” the investigation or prosecution of any offence or the administration or enforcement of program legislation be modified to instead allow for an investigation or review to be suspended should such a review or investigation interfere with a legal proceeding in regards to the conduct that is the subject of the complaint. Barring this, that reviews and investigations are only suspended, pending the confirmation that they can be restarted, and that such decisions are made by the PCRC and not by the body that is the subject of the investigation.
That the PCRC be made the sole investigating body for the public complaints it accepts regarding the RCMP and the CBSA, and that the government develop and implement a plan for PCRC to take control of all investigations within five years of its creation.
That, alternatively, Bill C-20 be amended to allow the Chairperson to initiate reviews of completed complaints investigations that were carried out by the RCMP or the CBSA.
Strike s. 84 and amend the bill to explicitly allow the PCRC to allow for a stay of removal or other interim remedies. Alternatively, allow for the filing of an accepted complaint with the PCRC to be used in the filing for a judicial stay of removal.
That sections 67 and 68 be amended to allow the PCRC to: a) Initiate, or require the initiation, of a disciplinary process at the conclusion of complaint hearings b) Order certain forms of redress, particularly in the form of halting removals from Canada or allowing re-entry c) Recommend financial redress or awards for founded complaints
That s. 28 be amended to allow the PCRC to make binding policy recommendations.
That s. 72 be amended to allow for the initiation of a disciplinary process if actions have not been taken to respond to and implement PCRC recommendations.
Amend s. 64 to require the sharing of interim reports with complainants and to allow for them to provide feedback.
That s. 67(2) be amended to require that a complainant be informed whether or not a disciplinary process was initiated following a recommendation by the PCRC, and why.
That s. 67 be amended to include a new section (3) that requires the PCRC and the complainant to be informed of the outcome of any disciplinary process initiated following a recommendation of the PCRC.
That s. 68(2) be amended to require a complainant be informed whether or not a disciplinary measure was imposed following a recommendation by the PCRC, and why.
That s. 97 also be amended to require the CBSA to report to both the PCRC and the complainant the outcome and any possible follow-up options following a disciplinary procedure.
That s. 65 be removed to allow for judicial review.
Amend s. 12 and s. 28(7) to allow for the public release of full reports.
That s. 13(2) be amended to read “disaggregated demographic-based data”; alternatively, that it be amended to include an enumerated list of demographic categories that could be modified or supplemented by regulation.
Remove s. 28(3); or, alternatively, remove 28(3)(a) and modify 28(3)(b) to read “no other review or inquiry has been recently undertaken on substantially the same issue by a federal or provincial entity.”
Amend s. 28(4) to read: Before conducting a review on its own initiative, the Commission must give a notice to the Minister as to the nature and topic of the review.
That s. 17(2)(b) be amended to read, “privileged information, including information subject to solicitor-client privilege or the professional secrecy of advocates and notaries or to litigation privilege […]”.
Amend Bill C-20 to provide a mechanism to adjudicate disputes of information that is “relevant and necessary.”
That Bill C-20 be amended in Part 4 to add: Review 93 The Committee of the House of Commons responsible for public safety matters must, a) within five years after the day on which the PCRC Act comes into force commence a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act, and complete the review within one year; and b) within three months after the day on which the review is completed, submit a report to the House of Commons setting out its findings.

For more details on each recommendations, consult the brief here.

Since you’re here…

Page 1 of 9212 3 4 5...10 20 30...»Last »

Share this:

Since you’re here…

Share this:

Since you’re here…

Share this: