The Federal Court of Appeal has overturned a judge’s decision ordering Ottawa to help four men detained in Syrian camps return to Canada.
In a judgment released Wednesday, a three-judge panel says the law does not require the federal government to repatriate these men. The latter are among many foreign nationals in camps and prisons run by Kurdish forces in Syria, which have taken over the torn region from the extremist group Islamic State.
The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal thus overturns the one handed down in January by Judge Henry Brown of the Federal Court. The latter ordered Ottawa to request the repatriation of the men as soon as it is reasonably possible to do so and to provide them with passports or emergency travel documents. Judge Brown found that these Canadians also had the right to have a federal government official travel to Syria to help facilitate their release once their captors agreed to free them.
The men include Jack Letts, whose parents John Letts and Sally Lane led a campaign to pressure Ottawa for federal help.
“The Federal Court of Appeal has clearly chosen to perpetuate the arbitrary detention and torture of my son and other Canadian detainees,” Ms. Lane denounced on Wednesday. “The ruling is nothing but victim blaming and narrow legalese that utterly disregards human rights and fails to meet the challenge of the moment. From the very beginning, Canada has held the key to their release, and it refuses to unlock the prison doors that the Kurds are prepared to open to them. »
The identity and whereabouts of the other three Canadians are not publicly known.
Ottawa had argued that Justice Brown had mistakenly confused the Charter right of citizens to enter Canada with a right of return, creating a new right for citizens to be returned home by the Canadian government.
The Federal Court of Appeal accepted this argument, stating that, according to the respondents’ interpretation of the Charter, “the Canadian administration is compelled to take concrete and even risky measures, particularly abroad, to enable the respondents to exercise their right to enter Canada”. “Such a right would be likely to have an unlimited scope. It would apply to a myriad of situations, from the repatriation of a person detained abroad for any reason, including an alleged breach of foreign law on foreign soil, to the payment of a ransom to those responsible for the ‘kidnapping of a Canadian citizen,’ the judges wrote.
The Court of Appeal noted that the conduct of the Canadian state did not lead the men to be in northeastern Syria, prevent them from entering Canada and did not cause nor prolonged the situation in which they find themselves. “The respondents, by reason of their conduct, and the persons abroad who keep them under their control are solely responsible for the situation. »
The Court of Appeal judges said that although the government is not constitutionally or legally bound to repatriate the men, their decision is “not intended to discourage the Canadian administration from making efforts, of its own leader, to achieve such a result”.
Lawyer Lawrence Greenspon, who is representing the other three men, said on Wednesday their families were “disappointed with the outcome”. He said they are “seriously considering” taking the case to the Supreme Court of Canada. During legal proceedings, Mr. Greenspon reached an agreement with the federal government earlier this year for the repatriation of six Canadian women and 13 children who were part of the lawsuit.