CIVE 463 Lecture 1: Class 1_W1
25 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Class 1: Practical Case of JRAA: Canada’s no-fly list
Practical problem - legislative scheme/statutory framework
• Before - Aeronautics Act umbrella emergency provision in to maintain air travel safety -
authorisation required from the minister.
• Secure Air Travel Act = no flight list - that was put together after 11 sept 2001.
Restrictions on flight: list that is made available to air carriers to that if the person is on
the list, you can be subject to further screening or refused the opportunity to get on the
flight.
o According to this act, Air carriers are quasi-public actors in this act as they almost
act in the name of public officials.
o They are required to screen people, the minister is given powers as well (s 8): to
establish a list of people who the Minister has reasonable grounds to suspect will
[be engaged in terrorist activities]
▪ engage or attempt to engage in an act that would threaten transportation
security; or
▪ travel by air for the purpose of committing an act or omission that
▪ is an offence under section 83.18, 83.19 or 83.2 of the Criminal Code or
an offence referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition terrorism offence
in section 2 of that Act, or
▪ if it were committed in Canada, would constitute an offence referred to in
subparagraph (i).
o List needs to be renewed every 90 days
• Why not look at K law? Because of constitution that is similar in principle to UK
Constitution based on 2 principles: parliamentary supremacy & the rule of law (i.e.
parliament makes law, administration gives a first interpretation in attempting to
implement the law, which might infringe some rights, which goes to court, and then
the court makes sure to see that this exercise was lawful) .
• As of s 9 Directions, that is where the list of things starts
o When you are on the list, you do not know before hand, you are told only at the
airport, a call is made to the minister, and there is a double check to see that you
are on the list.
o You have the right to contest the decision when you have been refused within 60
days
• S 16. There is also a statutory right of appeal (judicial review): that tells us that
parliament has imagined that judges will be called on to play a role in a legislative
scheme - and it affects the standard of review: when the parliament has planned that the
judge should be involved, it pushes away from deference as judges are part of the
statutory regime as per parliament. Appeal to the federal court (minister of emergency,
preparedness, and security)
o S 16(6) procedure
o Your client interest of liberty of flying is at stake, but no charges per se, Minister
will try to defend itself to say that its decision was reasonable
o Regime: immigration and refugee protection act, allow the ministers to detain
who they believe are endangering public safety according to security certificate
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Class 1: practical case of jraa: canada"s (cid:862)no-fly(cid:863) list. Because of constitution that is similar in principle to uk. But the government will say that it is not restricting its ambit to people of this background, ex. Muslim, but rather than the people fitting its criteria. Or reasonable, as in one of many options that could be adopted? (deference: default standard: reasonableness, even when charter rights issues are at stake, 2. Roncarelli: minister influences: did the decision maker take into account all considerations but still comes with outlying decision, mixed jurisprudence. Send questions by noon the day before - and then at the beginning of class - present discussion questions you have put together. Not aimed at comprehensiveness - not a summary ! Used as spring boards ? how do the cases fit within the part of the course; exam: 2 parts: 1 - choice of essay question; 2 - choice of essay question or fact pattern (70%)
