Ottawa not legally required to bring Canadians home from Syria, federal lawyer tells court | 24CA News

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn’t obligate Ottawa to repatriate Canadians held in Syrian camps, a authorities lawyer advised a Federal Court listening to Tuesday.

Family members of 23 detained Canadians — six ladies, 4 males and 13 youngsters — are asking the courtroom to order the federal government to rearrange for his or her return, saying that refusing to take action violates the constitution.

The Canadian residents are among the many many overseas nationals in Syrian camps run by Kurdish forces that reclaimed the war-torn area from the extremist Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Federal lawyer Anne Turley advised the courtroom there isn’t any authorized obligation to facilitate their repatriation beneath the constitution or in any statute or worldwide regulation.

“In arguing that the failure to repatriate violates charter rights, the applicants are making novel arguments. To date, the courts have taken a measured and cautious approach to the extraterritorial application of the charter,” Turley mentioned.

“It made it clear that in order for the charter to apply abroad, there must be evidence of Canadian officials participating in activities of the foreign state that are contrary to Canada’s international obligations or fundamental human rights norms. There is no such evidence here, or allegations of that nature.”

The individuals concerned within the courtroom case are detained overseas by overseas entities which can be working independently of Canada’s jurisdiction or management, Turley mentioned.

Requiring the federal government to take motion would require the courtroom to wade into issues of Crown management over worldwide relations and overseas affairs, she added.

A small quantity have returned

A handful of ladies and youngsters have returned from the area in recent times, however Canada has, for essentially the most half, not adopted the trail of different international locations which have efficiently repatriated residents.

Even so, Global Affairs Canada not too long ago decided that the six ladies and 13 youngsters included within the courtroom case have met a threshold beneath its January 2021 coverage framework for offering extraordinary help.

As a outcome, Global Affairs has begun assessments beneath the guiding ideas of the framework to find out whether or not to offer that help.

The names of the ladies and youngsters haven’t been disclosed.

The Canadian males embrace Jack Letts, whose dad and mom have publicly pushed the federal government to assist their son. They keep there isn’t any proof he turned a terrorist fighter abroad.

In a submitting with the courtroom, the households of the detained Canadians argue the method by which the federal government has decided whether or not to repatriate its residents “constitutes a breach of procedural fairness.”

They say no applicant was knowledgeable of the federal coverage framework put in place to find out whether or not to increase help till November 2021 — some 10 months after it was carried out and about two months after the courtroom software started.

The members of the family need a declaration that the federal government’s lack of motion was unreasonable, a proper request for repatriation of the members of the family, issuance of emergency journey paperwork and authorization of a consultant to facilitate their return.

Turley argued that the method is extra advanced than it would seem.

“It’s not, as the applicants would have you see it, a simple, straightforward exercise,” she mentioned. “This is not a one-size-fits-all approach.”

The authorities’s coverage framework is meant to information decision-making relating to attainable extraordinary help “on an individual basis,” Turley mentioned.

Officials should contemplate the protection and safety of Canadian authorities officers concerned in repatriation efforts in addition to that of the person detainees, she mentioned.

In addition, the federal government should weigh “the threat to public safety and national security, the protection of the Canadian public,” Turley added.

“The government has to assess these variables, and they are fluid. It’s a point-in-time decision.”