Le certificat de securite toujours contraire a la Charte: Etude de la norme de preuve du regime de detention applicable (Security Certificates Still Contrary to the Charter: Study of the Standard of Proof Pertaining to Detention Determination)

French Abstract: Au Canada, la Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des refugies met en œuvre le certificat de securite, qui a fait l’objet de nombreuses sagas judiciaires, particulierement depuis 2001. En fevrier 2007, dans l’arret Charkaoui, la Cour supreme du Canada a juge que d’autres mesures de protection devaient etre integrees au regime afin de mieux proteger les droits des personnes faisant l’objet d’une privation de liberte. Cependant, la plus haute instance du pays, dans sa decision, n’a pas pris le soin d’examiner en profondeur la norme de preuve applicable. Bien qu’en 2010, la Cour federale ait conclu, dans la decision Jaballah, que la norme des motifs raisonnables de croire se conforme aux principes de justice fondamentale, l’auteur considere que les cours de justice canadienne se meprennent dans leur angle d’approche relatif au certificat de securite, en ce qu’elles ne savent pas differencier le regime d’expulsion de celui qui limite le non-citoyen de sa liberte. Dans des contextes relies a la protection de la securite nationale, d’autres institutions gouvernementales ont trouve des facons de proteger la societe tout en accordant aux personnes un traitement plus juste en ce qui concerne le degre de conviction exige en matiere de privation de liberte propre a un cadre de detention preventive. Cette etude se caracterise par la conclusion selon laquelle la norme de preuve applicable au regime du certificat de securite doit faire l’objet d’une revision, car elle represente, eu egard a la Charte canadienne des droits et libertes, un desequilibre plus qu’appreciable dans le cadre de l’importance que revet le respect des droits fondamentaux au cœur d’un contexte de droit a la securite nationale.English Abstract: In Canada, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides for the issuance of security certificates, which have been repeatedly challenged in the courts, particularly since 2001. In February 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada held, in Charkaoui, that other procedural safeguards should be incorporated into the scheme to better protect the rights of individuals who are deprived of liberty. However, in that decision, the country’s highest court did not turn its attention to a thorough examination of the applicable standard of proof. Although the Federal Court held in 2010, in Jaballah, that the standard of reasonable grounds to believe complies with the principles of fundamental justice, the author is of the opinion that the Canadian courts have taken the wrong approach to security certificates in that they have not distinguished between the rules governing deportation and the rules governing limits on the liberty of non-citizens. In situations relating to national security, other government institutions have found ways of protecting society while affording fairer treatment for individuals in terms of the degree of certainty required for deprivation of liberty in a preventive detention context. This study is characterised by its call for a review of the standard of proof applicable to the security certificate scheme, since, with regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it represents a significant imbalance in terms of the importance of respect for fundamental rights in the context of the right to national security.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.