• This site is best viewed with Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.
 

The Federal Court is Canada's national trial court which hears and decides legal disputes arising in the federal domain. The Court is based in Ottawa, and its members travel throughout Canada to hear cases within its national jurisdiction, thereby providing convenient access to justice to all Canadians.

 
Judicial Appointment – Chief Justice Alan S. Diner Consolidated Practice Guidelines for Citizenship, Immigration, and Refugee Protection Proceedings Judicial Appointment - Associate Chief Justice Jocelyne Gagné File C-6-24 File IMM-5330-18 File T-2936-24 File-C-1-24 Judicial Appointment - Prothonotary Angela Furlanetto Courtroom Modernization Voltage Et Al v. Robert Salna et al Files T-306-22, T-316-22, T-347-22 and T-382-22 Judicial Appointment – Justice Allyson Whyte Nowak Judicial Appointment – Justice Julie L. Blackhawk Judicial Appointment – Justice Angus G. Grant File T-1274-23 File T-165-24 Files T-611-23 and T-589-23 File T-656-24 Judicial Appointment – Associate Judge Catharine Moore Judicial Appointment – Justice Michael Battista File T-1606-19 File T-1357-24 File T-511-24 Judicial Appointment – Justice Duchesne Study Permit Pilot Project Judicial Appointment – Justice Love Saint-Fleur Judicial Appointment – Associate Chief Justice Martine St-Louis Judicial Appointment – Justice Meaghan M. Conroy Judicial Appointment – Associate Judge Kirkland G. Shannon File T-1516-23 Judicial Appointment – Justice Danielle Ferron File T-60-25 Judicial Appointments - Justice Brouwer and Justice Thorne File T-503-17 File CSIS 24-22 Judicial Appointment — Justice François Joyal Judicial Appointment — Justice Giuseppina D’Agostino

Pages

File IMM-5330-18

Coat of Arms

Ottawa, June 4, 2026 – The Honourable John Norris of the Federal Court issued a decision today in file IMM-5330-18:

IN THE MATTER OF
MOHAMED HARKAT
v.
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Summary: Mohamed Harkat is a citizen of Algeria. He arrived in Canada in 1995 and claimed refugee protection based on his fear of persecution due to his membership in the Front islamique du salut, an Algerian opposition group. In 1997, the Convention Refugee Determination Division found him to be a Convention refugee. However, in 2002, the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration signed a security certificate under subsection 77(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (IRPA), stating that Mr. Harkat is inadmissible to Canada on security grounds. The Federal Court upheld the certificate as reasonable in 2005.

In 2008, following a successful constitutional challenge to the security certificate scheme and subsequent amendments to the IRPA, the ministers signed a second security certificate against Mr. Harkat. As with the first certificate, in the ministers’ opinion, Mr. Harkat is inadmissible to Canada on security grounds under paragraphs 34(1)(c), (d) and (f) of the IRPA for engaging in terrorism, being a danger to the security of Canada, and being a member of an organization (the Bin Laden Network) that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged, or will engage in acts of terrorism. In 2010, Justice Simon Noël concluded that the second security certificate was reasonable. This determination was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2014.

Under section 80 of the IRPA, a security certificate that is determined to be reasonable “is conclusive proof that the person named in it is inadmissible and is a removal order that is in force without it being necessary to hold or continue an examination or admissibility hearing.”

As a general rule, under subsection 115(1) of the IRPA, Convention refugees like Mr. Harkat are protected from removal from Canada by the principle of non-refoulement – that is to say, they may not be removed to a country where they would be at risk of persecution on a Convention ground or where they would be at risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. This general rule is subject to exceptions. One exception is that the principle does not apply in the case of a protected person who is inadmissible on security grounds and, “in the opinion of the Minister, the person should not be allowed to remain in Canada on the basis of the nature and severity of acts committed or of danger to the security of Canada” (IRPA, paragraph 115(2)(b)).

On October 2, 2018, a Senior Decision Maker with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, acting as a delegate of the Minister, concluded that Mr. Harkat should not be allowed to remain in Canada “based on the nature and severity of acts committed.” The decision maker did not address whether Mr. Harkat poses a danger to the security of Canada.

On June 4, 2026, the Court allowed Mr. Harkat’s application for judicial review of this decision. The Court was not persuaded that the process followed by the decision maker breached the requirements of procedural fairness. However, he concluded that the determination that Mr. Harkat should not be allowed to remain in Canada on the basis of the nature and severity of acts committed is unreasonable because a key finding by the decision maker – that Mr. Harkat was complicit in acts of terrorism committed by Chechen extremists – is not reasonably supported by the record (including Justice Noël’s findings supporting the reasonableness of the security certificate) or the decision maker’s reasoning. The Court remitted the matter for redetermination by a new decision maker.

Paragraph 74(d) of the IRPA provides that an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal may be made only if, in rendering judgment on an application for judicial review, the judge certifies that a serious question of general importance is involved and states the question. Whether a question for appeal should be certified remains on reserve with the Court.

The decision is posted on the News Bulletins page of the Federal Court website.

This is a Modal Popup Form