Federal Court Decisions

Date: 19971106

Docket: DES-4-95

             IN THE MATTER OF a certificate in

             relation to Satkuneswaran KANDIAH;

             AND IN THE MATTER OF the referral of

             that certificate to the Federal Court of

             Canada pursuant to paragraph 40.1(3)(a)

             of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2;

             IN RELATION TO:

                 SATKUNESWARAN KANDIAH

    

TEITELBAUM, J.:

[1]      These are proceedings commenced by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Solicitor General of Canada (the Minister), pursuant to section 40.1 of the Immigration Act (Act) relating to Satkuneswaran Kandiah.

[2]      Section 40.1 (1) to (6) of the Act states:

40.1 (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, where the Minister and the Solicitor General of Canada are of the opinion, based on security or criminal intelligence reports received and considered by them, that a person, other than a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, is a person described in subparagraph 19(1)(c.1)(ii), paragraph 19(1)(c.2), (d), (e), (f), (g), (j), (k) or (l) or subparagraph 19(2)(a.1)(ii), they may sign and file a certificate to that effect with an immigration officer, a senior immigration officer or an adjudicator.      (2) Where a certificate is signed and filed in accordance with subsection (1),      (a) an inquiry under this Act concerning the person in respect of whom the certificate is filed shall not be commenced, or if commenced shall be adjourned, until the determination referred to in paragraph (4)(d) has been made; and      (b) a senior immigration officer or an adjudicator shall, notwithstanding section 23 or 103 but subject to subsection (7.1), detain or make an order to detain the person named in the certificate until the making of the determination.      (3) Where a certificate referred to in subsection (1) is filed in accordance with that subsection, the Minister shall      (a) forthwith cause a copy of the certificate to be referred to the Federal Court for a determination as to whether the certificate should be quashed; and      (b) within three days after the certificate has been filed, cause a notice to be sent to the person named in the certificate informing the person that a certificate under this section has been filed and that following a reference to the Federal Court a deportation order may be made against the person.      (4) Where a certificate is referred to the Federal Court pursuant to subsection (3), the Chief Justice of that Court or a judge of that Court designated by the Chief Justice for the purposes of this section shall      (a) examine within seven days, in camera, the security or criminal intelligence reports considered by the Minister and the Solicitor General and hear any other evidence or information that may be presented by or on behalf of those Ministers and may, on the request of the Minister or the Solicitor General, hear all or part of such evidence or information in the absence of the person named in the certificate and any counsel representing the person where, in the opinion of the Chief Justice or the designated judge, as the case may be, the evidence or information should not be disclosed on the grounds that the disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of persons;      (b) provide the person named in the certificate with a statement summarizing such information available to the Chief Justice or the designated judge, as the case may be, as will enable the person to be reasonably informed of the circumstances giving rise to the issue of the certificate, having regard to whether, in the opinion of the Chief Justice or the designated judge, as the case may be, the information should not be disclosed on the grounds that the disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of persons;      (c) provide the person named in the certificate with a reasonable opportunity to be heard;      (d) determine whether the certificate filed by the Minister and the Solicitor General is reasonable on the basis of the evidence and information available to the Chief Justice or the designated judge, as the case may be, and, if found not to be reasonable, quash the certificate; and      (e) notify the Minister, the Solicitor General and the person named in the certificate of the determination made pursuant to paragraph (d).      (5) For the purposes of subsection (4), the Chief Justice or the designated judge may, subject to subsection (5.1), receive, accept and base the determination referred to in paragraph (4)(d) on such evidence or information as the Chief Justice or the designated judge sees fit, whether or not the evidence or information is or would be admissible in a court of law.      (5.1) For the purposes of subsection (4),      (a) the Minister or the Solicitor General of Canada may make an application, in camera and in the absence of the person named in the certificate and any counsel representing the person, to the Chief Justice or the designated judge for the admission of information obtained in confidence from the government or an institution of a foreign state or from an international organization of states or an institution thereof;      (b) the Chief Justice or the designated judge shall, in camera and in the absence of the person named in the certificate and any counsel representing the person,      (i) examine that information, and      (ii) provide counsel representing the Minister or the Solicitor General of Canada with a reasonable opportunity to be heard as to whether the information is relevant but should not be disclosed to the person named in the certificate on the grounds that the disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of persons;      (c) that information shall be returned to counsel representing the Minister or the Solicitor General of Canada and shall not be considered by the Chief Justice or the designated judge in making the determination referred to in paragraph (4)(d), if      (i) the Chief Justice or the designated judge determines      (A) that the information is not relevant, or      (B) that the information is relevant and should be summarized in the statement to be provided pursuant to paragraph (4)(b) to the person named in the certificate, or      (ii) the Minister or the Solicitor General of Canada withdraws the application; and      (d) if the Chief Justice or the designated judge determines that the information is relevant but should not be disclosed to the person named in the certificate on the grounds that the disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of persons, the information shall not be summarized in the statement provided pursuant to paragraph (4)(b) to the person named in the certificate but may be considered by the Chief Justice or the designated judge in making the determination referred to in paragraph (4)(d).      (6) A determination under paragraph (4)(d) is not subject to appeal or review by any court.

40.1 (1) Par dérogation aux autres dispositions de la présente loi, le ministre et le solliciteur général du Canada peuvent, s'ils sont d'avis, à la lumière de renseignements secrets en matière de sécurité ou de criminalité dont ils ont eu connaissance, qu'une personne qui n'est ni citoyen canadien ni résident permanent appartiendrait à l'une des catégories visées au sous-alinéa 19(1)c.1)(ii), aux alinéas 19(1)c.2), d), e), f), g), j), k) ou l) ou au sous-alinéa 19(2)a.1)(ii), signer et remettre une attestation à cet effet à un agent d'immigration, un agent principal ou un arbitre.      (2) En cas de remise de l'attestation visée au paragraphe (1) :      a) l'enquête prévue par ailleurs aux termes de la présente loi sur l'intéressé ne peut être ouverte tant que la décision visée à l'alinéa (4)d) n'a pas été rendue;      b) l'agent principal ou l'arbitre doit, par dérogation aux articles 23 ou 103 mais sous réserve du paragraphe (7.1), retenir l'intéressé ou prendre une mesure à cet effet contre lui en attendant la décision.      (3) En cas de remise de l'attestation prévue au paragraphe (1), le ministre est tenu :      a) d'une part, d'en transmettre sans délai un double à la Cour fédérale pour qu'il soit décidé si l'attestation doit être annulée;      b) d'autre part, dans les trois jours suivant la remise, d'envoyer un avis à l'intéressé l'informant de la remise et du fait que, à la suite du renvoi à la Cour fédérale, il pourrait faire l'objet d'une mesure d'expulsion.      (4) Lorsque la Cour fédérale est saisie de l'attestation, le juge en chef de celle-ci ou le juge de celle-ci qu'il délègue pour l'application du présent article :      a) examine dans les sept jours, à huis clos, les renseignements secrets en matière de sécurité ou de criminalité dont le ministre et le solliciteur général ont eu connaissance et recueille les autres éléments de preuve ou d'information présentés par ces derniers ou en leur nom; il peut en outre, à la demande du ministre ou du solliciteur général, recueillir tout ou partie de ces éléments en l'absence de l'intéressé et du conseiller le représentant, lorsque, à son avis, leur communication porterait atteinte à la sécurité nationale ou à celle de personnes;      b) fournit à l'intéressé un résumé des informations dont il dispose, à l'exception de celles dont la communication pourrait, à son avis, porter atteinte à la sécurité nationale ou à celle de personnes, afin de permettre à celui-ci d'être suffisamment informé des circonstances ayant donné lieu à l'attestation;      c) donne à l'intéressé la possibilité d'être entendu;      d) décide si l'attestation est raisonnable, compte tenu des éléments de preuve et d'information à sa disposition, et, dans le cas contraire, annule l'attestation;      e) avise le ministre, le solliciteur général et l'intéressé de la décision rendue aux termes de l'alinéa d).      (5) Pour l'application du paragraphe (4), le juge en chef ou son délégué peut, sous réserve du paragraphe (5.1), recevoir et admettre les éléments de preuve ou d'information qu'il juge utiles, indépendamment de leur recevabilité devant les tribunaux, et peut se fonder sur ceux-ci pour se déterminer.      (5.1) Pour l'application du paragraphe (4) :      a) le ministre ou le solliciteur général du Canada peuvent présenter au juge en chef ou à son délégué, à huis clos et en l'absence de l'intéressé et du conseiller le représentant, une demande en vue de faire admettre en preuve des renseignements obtenus sous le sceau du secret auprès du gouvernement d'un État étranger, d'une organisation internationale mise sur pied par des États étrangers ou de l'un de leurs organismes;      b) le juge en chef ou son délégué, à huis clos et en l'absence de l'intéressé et du conseiller le représentant:      (i) étudie les renseignements,      (ii) accorde au représentant du ministre ou du solliciteur général la possibilité de lui présenter ses arguments sur la pertinence des renseignements et le fait qu'ils ne devraient pas être communiqués à l'intéressé parce que cette communication porterait atteinte à la sécurité nationale ou à celle de personnes;      c) ces renseignements doivent être remis au représentant du ministre ou du solliciteur général et ne peuvent servir de fondement à la décision visée à l'alinéa (4)d), si:      (i) soit le juge en chef ou son délégué détermine que les renseignements ne sont pas pertinents ou, s'ils le sont, devraient faire partie du résumé mentionné à l'alinéa (4)b),      (ii) soit le ministre ou le solliciteur général retire sa demande;      d) si le juge en chef ou son délégué décide qu'ils sont pertinents mais que cette communication porterait atteinte à la sécurité nationale ou à celle de personnes, les renseignements ne font pas partie du résumé mais peuvent servir de fondement à la décision visée à l'alinéa (4)d).      (6) La décision visée à l'alinéa (4)d) ne peut être portée en appel ni être revue par aucun tribunal.

[3]      The procedure outlined in the Act has been satisfied. Pursuant to subsection 40.1(4)(b), Mr. Kandiah was provided with a statement summarizing the information placed before me at the in camera hearing as would enable him to be reasonably informed of the circumstances giving rise to the issue of the certificate and, pursuant to subsection 40.1(4)(c), was provided with a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Although Mr. Kandiah took advantage of "the opportunity to be heard" by calling witnesses he, himself, failed to testify because of the fact that he fled Canada to go to the United States of America (USA). Therefore, Mr. Kandiah himself never denied any of the allegations made about him by the two Ministers (Crown).

[4]      Pursuant to the "public" statement summarizing the information pursuant to section 40.1 of the Act, Mr. Kandiah is believed to have been a former member of both the Peoples Liberation Organization of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and that the LTTE is an organization known to engage in terrorist activities. It is also alleged that PLOTE was an organization which was known to engage in terrorist activities.     

[5]      According to the evidence made before me at the in camera hearing, I am satisfied that there is evidence to reasonably conclude that:

a)      the primary objective of the PLOTE was to establish an independent Tamil homeland through the use of violence.

b)      the primary objective of the LTTE is to establish an independent Tamil homeland through the use of violence

c)      KANDIAH was a high ranking functionary within the PLOTE and later joined the LTTE in a leadership capacity, and

         d)      KANDIAH has engaged in terrorism.

[6]      I have heard and read the evidence of Srikuma Kanagaratnam. It in no way convinces me that Mr. Kandiah was not a member of the LTTE, the organization that Mr. Kanagaratnam was a member of for seven years, from October 1983 to February 1990. In February 1990 Mr. Kanagaratnam was allegedly expelled from the LTTE. His evidence is that from October 1987 to February 1990, he had no contact "with the outside world" as he was detained by the Government of India under house arrest "for 11 months in Madras, India. Then I was detained in the Central Jail in Madras and later detained by the Indian Army in Sri Lanka".

[7]      The witness, when asked to identify a picture of Mr. Kandiah identified the picture as that of "Valavan" and states that Kandiah "is known as" Valavan and that the first time he met Mr. Kandiah was in Montreal in the summer of 1992. The witness does not deny the possibility that he met Mr. Kandiah before the summer of 1992 as, when asked if he could recollect that he met Mr. Kandiah in "Jaffna or India or anywhere", the witness does not say he did not meet Mr. Kandiah but states "I do not recollect seeing him back in Jaffna nor in India".

[8]      A second witness called by Mr. Kandiah is a Mr. Sinnaih N. Tharmalingam, an individual who came to Canada in 1994. Mr. Tharmalingam states he is the step-brother of Mr. Kandiah who, he states, is named "Kandiah Satkuneswaran". The witness also states that his step-brother was not a member of PLOTE but that "he used to paste notices and used to provide meals (for PLOTE). He used to collect food from various houses and deliver it to the camp. He used to talk to them. This is the work he did." I assume from this answer that Mr. Kandiah did the same things for the LTTE because the witness was asked about some of the times Mr. Kandiah was arrested by the Sri Lanka authorities and was asked:

"These activities you said, like pasting posters, collecting food parcels and just to hang around with LTTE supporters, are those serious from the point of view of the Sri Lanka government or the police?"

[9]      Obviously, Mr. Kandiah did the above for both the PLOTE and the LTTE. It is apparent that Mr. Kandiah delivered food to the camps of PLOTE and the LTTE; but possibly at different times.

[10]      With regard to Mr. Kandiah's membership in the LTTE, the witness states, in a question put by counsel for the "Crown".

Q.      I just want to make sure that I understood you correctly. You indicated that your brother, after he was spoken to by the CSIS, was afraid he might be arrested or might be deported; yes?

A.      Yes, he was afraid and he expected that would happen. And he was not clear what would happen to him.

Q.      And he planned to tell the CSIS that he was in the LTTE; is that right?

A.      If they returned, he planned to tell them like that. He planned to tell that.

Q.      Were you living at his house on Sunnyglen, I guess it is, in Toronto in September, 1995?

A.      Yes.

Q.      Were you present when the CSIS came to interveiw him?

A.      I was not there.

HIS LORDSHIP:      What is the answer?

THE WITNESS:      No.

BY MS. MacFADYEN:

Q.      Your stepbrother told you that he lied to the CSIS officers so that the CSIS wouldn't harass him; is that right?

A.      Yes.

[11]      Therefore, it is apparent that Mr. Kandiah admitted to the CCIS officers that he was a member of the LTTE "but that this fact was said to avoid harassment" by, I assume, CSIS officers.

[12]      A third witness, Rathika Satkuneswaran, the wife of Mr. Kandiah, gave evidence. She states that her husband would go with friends to "paste posters" for PLOTE. She states that her husband took part in no other (political) activities other than the collection of food. She claims her husband never joined PLOTE or any other movement "as an active member". She states her husband never carried arms himself but when asked "Had you ever seen him with anybody else who were carrying arms? she states "Sometimes, he goes there but I never saw him carrying arms.". Obviously, Mr. Kandiah associated, at the very least, with people carrying arms.

[13]      The evidence that was made before me in the in camera hearing about the activities of Mr. Kadiah for PLOTE and the LTTE and not denied by Mr. Kandiah, is sufficient for me to conclude that the "Crown" could reasonably conclude that Mr. Kandiah took part in the activities of both PLOTE and LTTE.

[14]      Appendix "B" to the Statement Summarizing the Information Pursuant to paragraph 40.1(4)(b) lists 84 acts of alleged terrorism caused by PLOTE and LTTE operations form July 27, 1975 to September 10, 1995.

[15]      In that I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Kandiah is or was a member of PLOTE and LTTE during the years 1975 to 1995, I am satisfied that the certificate filed by the Solicitor General and the Minister for these purposes is reasonable on the basis of the evidence and information available to me.

     Max M. Teitelbaum

    

     J.F.C.C.

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

November 6, 1997