- Lisa Haselton's Reviews and Interviews: Interview with mystery author Mary E. Martin
- Interview with Mary E Martin
- A Trial of One: The Third in the Osgoode Trilogy
- ¿Está seguro?
First, he is swept up in a massive money-laundering scheme by the enigmatic Mr. Chin and into conflict with his wealthy client Marjorie Deighton. When he finds Marjorie dead, he senses foul play. Are the Florist's murders and Mr. Chin's shady dealings connected? Can Harry find the answers before the Florist strikes again? Fortunately, the beautiful Natasha is there to guide him to the answers. Create Widget. About Mary E.
Also in Series: The Osgoode Trilogy. Also by This Author. Report this book. He wants a candidate for his trial of one. What events intersect to answer this fraud upon a fraud? Read what you've been missing. Scroll down to see five novels downloadable onto any reading device. I've written "The Osgoode Trilogy" which was inspired by my many years of law practice in Toronto, Canada where I live.
If you're looking for suspense thrillers to get your teeth into, try one of these.
- Honours Even.
- Conduct in Question, the first in The Osgoode Trilogy.
- Another Bite at the Apple;
- The Altruist.
- A long way home: There and back?
They can be read in any order. After writing three legal suspense novels, I was ready for a change And so, the Trilogy of Remembrance is literary fiction set in the world of art. The Drawing Lesson which asks "Is the universe random and chaotic or does it have a secret, mysterious order? See All Customer Reviews. Shop Books. First, I will review the shifting legislative and constitutional landscape within which certificates operate, highlighting core principles elucidated in Charkaoui I and II.
Second, I will use Harkat as a base for appraising how parliament and the Federal Court have attempted to operationalize the constitutional principles outlined in Charkaoui I and II. I will focus in particular on how the Supreme Court has placed the bulk of responsibility for guarding the rule of law on the shoulders of Federal Court judges. Fourth, I will reflect on how the position of the Court in the certificate trilogy obligates it to take notice of non-compliance with Suresh.
The Constitution of Security Certificates A. Legislative Framework In existence since , security certificates are a long-standing component of immigration and refugee law. Governed under Division 9 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act IRPA ,18 certificate proceedings begin when the Ministers of Public Safety Canada and Citizenship and Immigration Canada issue a certificate against a non-citizen who they allege is inadmissible to Canada on the grounds of security, violation of human or international rights, serious criminality and organized criminality.
Evidence consists in human source intelligence e. This information and intelligence is collected through domestic operations, as well as through formal and informal partnerships with foreign intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. The judge must order the continuation of the detention if the release of the named person would be injurious to national security, endanger the safety of any person, or enhance the risk of flight.
Detention reviews occur within the first 48 hours after a detention begins and at six months intervals thereafter, at least until the reasonableness of the certificate has been determined. If the designated judge finds that a certificate is reasonable, the person is inadmissible and subject to removal from Canada. The designated judge is authorized to make decisions on the basis of evidence not disclosed to the named person. At the initiative of the Minsters, the latter determination is made during the course of a closed hearing.
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act IRPA directs designated judges to maintain the confidentiality of information the disclosure of which would adversely affect national security including the integrity of national security operations, strategies and relationships or the safety of individual persons e. Each of these parties has access to Secret Security Intelligence Reports SSIR , which include the history, results, and progress of ongoing or stalled intelligence operations.derivid.route1.com/gestin-auxiliar-de-reproduccin-en-soporte-convencional-o.php
Lisa Haselton's Reviews and Interviews: Interview with mystery author Mary E. Martin
Due to the ATA, , not all of this information will be filed with the Federal Court; only such information that is relevant to the ground of admissibility outlined in the certificate will be filed. Special Advocates may request the disclosure of information in the possession of the government but that has not been filed.
The ATA, allows the Ministers to challenge further disclosure on the grounds that requested information does not enable the named person to be reasonably informed of the case against him. This supposes, wrongly, that the right to be reasonably informed suffices to enable named persons to adequately defend themselves. As we will see when we review Harkat, the adequacy of the SA regime is a separate matter from the right of named persons to be reasonably informed- - both are necessary for a trial to be fair.
Charkaoui I Prior to Harkat, the Supreme Court of Canada twice reviewed elements of the certificate regime for consistency with the Charter. A primary issue was the constitutionality of the use of closed evidence. At the time, the impugned provisions required that such evidence be tendered during closed hearings attended at only by the designated judge and the Minsters — there were no SAs. The court found that the absence of counsel representing the interests of named persons during closed proceedings contravened the s.
Importantly, this decision rested on its observation that certificates lead to three actual or potential substantive harms: protracted detention, deportation to torture, and harm to dignity. It does not matter whether the proceedings are criminal or administrative in nature; what matters is the impact the decision has on the well- being of the affected person.
While certificate proceedings are administrative in nature, the Court accordingly relied on criminal law principles to resolve the question of whether named persons were receiving a fair trial, which consists of three conditions. This requires that the named person receive a certain, unspecified amount of direct disclosure.
Second, the designated judge must base her decision made on the basis of the facts and law. This condition could be satisfied by the presence of opposing counsel during secret trials i. Third, the designated judge must be independent and impartial. The Court gave the government an opportunity to save the certificate regime by pointing to several alternative approaches to using secret evidence. While not an advocate per se, SIRC counsel had access to closed evidence and could cross- examine government witnesses during closed hearings. Similar approaches were used during the Arar Inquiry.
The Court left it for parliament to decide how to bring the certificate regime into conformity with the Charter. Section SAs may also participate in, and cross-examine witnesses who testify during closed hearings. Designated judges have been required to interpret and apply these provisions in consideration of Charkaoui I.
Over time, a series of questions has recurred, including: may SAs access all information on file with the government that is relevant to a named person, or, can they only access evidence submitted by the Ministers? Under what circumstances might procedural fairness justify the disclosure of privileged material, such as the employment records of CSIS agents or the identities of confidential informants?
To what extent may SAs communicate with named persons, or other SAs, about a case after having seen classified material? To what extent are communications between SAs and named persons covered by solicitor-client privilege? Finally, do named persons have a right to direct disclosure, regardless of what is disclosed to SAs? Foreseeing some of these issues, parliament provided designated judges with broad discretion over procedural matters relating to SAs. For instance, s.
- Cookie Settings.
- BE THE FIRST TO KNOW.
- How To Make the Best Juice and Smoothies: 23 Essential Tips and Tricks to Avoid Common Mistakes, Save Time, and Cut Costs.
- Il bambino senza nome (Bestseller Vol. 179) (Italian Edition).
- Blog Archive.
- A Trial of One | The Third in the Osgoode Trilogy.
Designated judges, of which there are typically between , receive training in handling secret evidence and presiding over secret trials, and regularly confer with one another about lessons learned and best practices. Finally, parliament provided named persons with a right of appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal for serious questions of general importance, excluding interlocutory decisions. Charkaoui II Shortly following the amendment of IRPA, the Court turned its attention to the outer limits of the certificate regime: the assemblage of security intelligence practices that produce evidence used against named persons.
The Ministers, in turn, are responsible for ensuring that all of this information is disclosed to the designated judge and SAs. In consideration of the position of the Minster and SAs, the judge then determines what material may be disclosed to the named person and what material must remain classified. Must it disclose all information that is minimally relevant or only information that is reasonably necessary in order for the SAs to test the accuracy of submitted evidence? If there is no privilege, or if it is lifted, should SAs also be able to cross-examine human sources? How might Charkaoui II affect the fairness of proceedings that were already underway, given that large volumes of information that should have been disclosed in principle were already destroyed in accordance with long-standing internal policy?
Finally, courts still had not addressed whether named persons are entitled to receive a certain amount of direct disclosure. As adequate as the SA system may be, it does not completely satisfy the free-standing, s. To the contrary, they have proven to be exceedingly complex, time-consuming, and administratively burdensome.
Interview with Mary E Martin
The internal operations of public and closed proceedings, and within which stream certain information appropriately belongs, have been subject to frequent interlocutory hearings, appeals, and Charter challenges. Charter challenges have in two instances yielded landmark Supreme Court rulings, but there remained a plethora of questions about how the Federal Court was to operationalize abstract principles.
Consistency is also supported by the availability of appeals on questions of law, both to the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Still, the usual operations and institutional capacities of the Federal Court have been strained by the need for judges to manage large volumes of factual information across public and closed hearings, while building and maintaining a body of jurisprudence in the context of a shifting constitutional and legislative landscape.
Harkat v. Canada: Harkat v. Canada is the most recent Supreme Court of Canada case on the constitutionality of the certificate regime. The case was triggered by a finding by designated judge Noel J. Harkat was reasonable. There were host sub-issues at play here, including: a whether named persons receive enough information to be reasonably informed of the case against them, b whether Special Advocates possess the powers and resources necessary to discharge their roles, c whether the Charter allows for hearsay to be used as evidence.
The Court found that a certificate proceeding will always be unfair if a the named person is only provided access to general assertions i. As we saw, the Court dealt with these issues by recommending the introduction of a SA system. But the Court did not squarely address the question of whether the s. There are some analogs for determining the scope of direct disclosure. The accused is always entitled to information that is submitted as evidence.
A Trial of One: The Third in the Osgoode Trilogy
Even here, there may be conflicts between disclosure and national security. These conflicts are governed by s. This means that information that is not disclosed to an accused may not, under any circumstances, be submitted as evidence in a criminal trial. In the event that the non-disclosure of evidence unduly limits the capacity of the accused to make full answer and defence, a judge may provide certain remedies, including staying proceedings. The Court has consistently found that this model is inappropriate for certificates.
While the Court has been applying criminal law principles to certificate proceedings, it was reluctant to find that the use of secret evidence during administrative proceedings is per se unconstitutional. The real question was the extent of direct disclosure required or, put negatively, the extent of submitted evidence that may be constitutionally withheld from the named person. The Court then addressed the tendency of the government to over-claim national security confidentiality.
This issue has been a subject of judicial concern, both within the context of security certificates42 and beyond. As noted, SAs are prohibited from communicating with named persons after accessing classified material. The Minister chose to withdraw the evidence, which resulted in the quashing of the certificate against Mr.
In addition to being powerfully protected at common law and constitutional law,50 solicitor-client privilege is expressly protected under s. The Court decided that this potential unfairness may be averted if designated judges employ safeguards, such as hearing the submissions of SAs in the absence of the Minsters. This is an issue of general importance because evidence derived from security intelligence work often contains appreciable levels of hearsay.
Hearsay is ordinarily inadmissible as evidence in large part due to questions of reliability. Were Proceedings Against Mr. Harkat Fair? The next cluster of issues concerned whether proceedings against Mr.
Harkat cohered with the principles outlined in Charkaoui II. This segment of the judgment dealt with the extents to which criminal law principles should govern certificate proceedings. For example, Mr. Harkat argued that his SAs should have the authority to cross-examine or at least learnt he identities of CSIS human sources.
It is a cardinal rule in criminal law that the identities of police informants are privileged, meaning that they cannot be divulged to the defence or to the public. The rationale for informer privilege is twofold: to protect the informer and, in so doing, to encourage others to come forward with important information. However, informer privilege has acquired constitutional status, such that the identity of the informer will be divulged if and only if it is necessary to demonstrate the innocence of the accused. In , the Ministers informed designated judge Noel J. The official report disclosed to the Federal Court did not contain any account of this revision or the original results; the court only received the amended report.
Harkat requested that all information relating to the human source be excluded or, in the alternative, that they be authorized to cross-examine the source. The Court reviewed Noel J. Almalki,70 class privilege is a fairly rare and inflexible protection which does not easily fit the realities of security intelligence work. In contrast to that inhering between police and informers, relationships between CSIS employees and human sources tend to be comparatively fluid, complex, and informal. Due to the categorical, all-or-nothing nature of class privilege, and the unique institutional and social contexts of security intelligence work, the question of informer privilege would best be left to Parliament rather than to courts.
However, a named person or SA may contest that the person concerned is a human source, or, that certain information may not safely be disclosed. It remains to be seen whether this amendment will withstand Charter scrutiny. It is worth noting here that the Court in Harkat stated that disclosure of information pertaining to human sources would be only to persons with security-clearance and who are obligated to maintain the confidentiality of the information.
On the other, it helps SAs and judges assess the reliability of evidence, most especially in light of above-noted instances of misdirection. The rights of named persons may be dependent on the disclosure of human source files and related information to SAs. It should also be noted that designated judges take into account the fact that information from human sources is hearsay when weighing the evidence. Harkat unfair, and b whether the Ministers failed to discharge their duties of candour and utmost good faith in failing to secure recent foreign intelligence relevant to Mr.
Pursuant to precedent established in the context of criminal law, the Minsters have a duty to retain evidence relevant to the defence of the named person and to explain the loss or destruction of such evidence; the failure to do so results in a Charter breach.