The Federal Court of Appeal has thrown out a bid by two men to get off the country害羞草研究所檚 no-fly list after they weren害羞草研究所檛 allowed to board planes in Vancouver in 2018, with the court ruling there were grounds to suspect they would commit terrorism.
In a ruling this week, the court dismissed an appeal by Bhagat Singh Brar and Parvkar Singh Dulai after they lost a constitutional challenge of their no-fly designations under Canada害羞草研究所檚 Secure Air Travel Act.
The ruling says the act empowers the public safety minister to ban people from flying if there are 害羞草研究所渞easonable grounds to suspect they will threaten transportation security or travel by air to commit a terrorism offence.害羞草研究所�
Under the Secure Air Travel Act, the minister can direct an airline to order an 害羞草研究所渆nhanced security screening害羞草研究所� of a listed individual or 害羞草研究所減rohibit the person from flying,害羞草研究所� the ruling says.
害羞草研究所淎t some point, the appellants tried to fly. They could not,害羞草研究所� the ruling says. 害羞草研究所淭hey were on the list and the minister had directed that they not fly.害羞草研究所�
The appellate panel found that based on confidential security information, the minister 害羞草研究所渉ad reasonable grounds to suspect that the appellants would travel by air to commit a terrorism offence.害羞草研究所�
In 2019, Brar and Dulai went to the Federal Court of Canada to have their names struck from the list.
But Justice Simon No毛l ruled against them both in 2022. The limits imposed on Dulai, he ruled, 害羞草研究所渨ere the result of evidence-based suspicions that he could fly abroad in order to plot a terrorist attack.害羞草研究所�
害羞草研究所淭he Government of Canada must enact laws that protect national security and intelligence activities in a way that respects rights and freedoms and encourage the international community to do the same,害羞草研究所� No毛l ruled. 害羞草研究所淧rotecting national security is a pressing and substantial objective.害羞草研究所�
In their appeal, both Brar and Dulai argued the impairment of their rights as a result of being placed on the list was not 害羞草研究所渕inimal害羞草研究所� and therefore unjustified.
But the appellate court ruled the legislation was justified and that confidential portions of the court process were procedurally fair.
The Secure Air Travel Act deals with 害羞草研究所渘ational security, international relations and global co-operation to prevent terrorism害羞草研究所� and is 害羞草研究所渘ot directed to past events that are tangible, certain and known,害羞草研究所� the appellate court found.
害羞草研究所淩ather, it is forward-looking, designed to act preventatively, proactively and pre-emptively to deal with perhaps imprecise but nevertheless very real risks of harm to property, public safety and human life,害羞草研究所� the ruling says. 害羞草研究所淪everal of its features show careful tailoring to minimize the impairment of rights and freedoms.害羞草研究所�
Judge David Stratas, who wrote for the three-judge panel, says while the courts need to protect rights, the stakes for government are 害羞草研究所渟ky-high害羞草研究所� for security and terrorism prevention, which warrants giving Parliament 害羞草研究所渟ome leeway.害羞草研究所�
Lawyers for Brar and Dulai did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the court害羞草研究所檚 ruling.
In 2019 submissions to the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association warned of a 害羞草研究所渄angerous lack of due process害羞草研究所� baked into the Secure Air Travel Act害羞草研究所檚 appeal framework.
In its submission, the association said the act sets the standard 害羞草研究所渓ow害羞草研究所� for the minister to add someone to the no-fly list, and their ability to challenge the listing is 害羞草研究所渄efective.害羞草研究所�
害羞草研究所淧roceedings may take place in secret, appellants are only provided a discretionary summary of the intelligence and evidence used against them (which may include hearsay), and the judge is empowered to rely on evidence and information which has not been provided in that summary,害羞草研究所� the association said. 害羞草研究所淭he appellant害羞草研究所檚 right to be heard is not meaningful if she or he does not know the case to meet.害羞草研究所�
READ ALSO:
