[2011] 4 F.C.R. D-10
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Charter of Rights
Mobility Rights
Application for judicial review, remedy challenging decision of Minister of Foreign Affairs, Passport Canada refusing to issue passport to applicant for reasons of national security under Canadian Passport Order, SI/81-86, s. 10.1—Applicant Canadian citizen convicted in France for criminal offences inextricably connected to passports—Principles of procedural fairness not breached in present case—Evident Passport Canada taking into account Federal Court’s comments on applicant’s previous application for judicial review; Passport Canada’s report containing recommendation to Minister integrating all of applicant’s representations—Furthermore, applicant having access to Passport Canada’s investigation report, given opportunity to comment there on—Decision refusing to issue passport to applicant violating rights protected by Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44], s. 6(1)—However, violation justified under Charter, s. 1—Restriction designed to achieve sufficiently important objective, namely international fight against terrorism; rational connection between objective, rights violation clearly established, as applicant’s conviction for crimes inextricably connected to travel, passport use; impugned provision impairing Charter rights as little as possible since refusal to issue passport subject, in particular, to time limit; lastly, proportionality existing between harm to applicant, benefit for community as whole (national security)—Applicant’s constitutional rights guaranteed by Charter, s. 7 not violated by investigation process, Passport Canada’s recommendation or Minister’s decision to refuse to issue passport—Rights claimed by applicant not among “basic choices”—Constitution not protecting economic rights or granting right to travel for leisure vacations—Lastly, applicant’s constitutional rights guaranteed by Charter, s. 8 not violated—Impossible to conclude applicant’s right to privacy infringed since only evidence supporting recommendation to Minister public, namely foreign court judgment—Application dismissed.
Kamel v. Canada (Attorney General) (T‑1366‑10, 2011 FC 1061, Scott J., judgment dated September 8, 2011, 49 pp.)