Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Zündel v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date 2000-05-17
File numbers A-382-99
Notes Digest

Decision Content





Date: 20000517


Docket: A-382-99


CORAM:      LINDEN J.A.

         ROBERTSON J.A.

         SHARLOW J.A.

BETWEEN:


ERNST ZÜNDEL


APPELLANT


- and -


THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND

THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE


RESPONDENTS






Heard at Ottawa, Ontario on Wednesday the 17th day of May 2000

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario on Wednesday the 17th day of May 2000


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:      SHARLOW J.A.





Date: 20000517


Docket: A-382-99


CORAM:      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LINDEN

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBERTSON

         THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE SHARLOW

BETWEEN:


ERNST ZÜNDEL


APPELLANT


- and -


THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND

THE CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE


RESPONDENTS

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on

Wednesday, May 17, 2000)

SHARLOW J.A.


We are all of the view that this appeal cannot succeed. We do not find it necessary to determine whether the subject of this judicial review is the Minister's report dated August 2, 1995 or the letter dated March 31, 1999 from the presiding member of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. If we were to assume that the Minister's report is the subject of this judicial review, the application was out of time and the decision of the Motions Judge is correct.


If we were to assume that the letter of March 31, 1999 is the subject of this judicial review, we can discern no error in the letter that warrants the intervention of this Court. We do not accept that there is a valid analogy between the Minister's report and an information that initiates a criminal trial. It is our view that the Minister's report is sufficient to initiate an investigation by the Committee. We agree with the presiding member of the Committee that the Committee is obliged to investigate the basis of the report and that the Committee has the jurisdiction to do so.


Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.




                                 Karen R. Sharlow

                            

                                     J.A.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.