Update:Legal challenge against Bill C-24

[crimesinister]

I have spent the past few months dedicating myself to defeating Harper. Now that the Tories are gone, I've been thinking about restarting my legal challenge against Bill C-24. However, I'm in communication with the Liberals, and they've clearly indicated that repealing Bill C-24 is a "high priority". They haven't exactly given me timeline.

Meanwhile, my lawyers and I are also keeping an eye out for the outcome of Rocco Galati's appeal of Bill C-24, which will be heard in January. Mr. Galati is also waiting to hear from the Liberals as to whether they'd repeal the bill or not before proceeding.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-left-to-deal-with-constitutional-challenges-to-conservative-laws-1.2630398?hootPostID=cd2d5e3f2cf4a965ae5f777a0ef80837

Constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati is currently appealing a lower court ruling on his challenge to Bill C-24, the law that empowers the cabinet to strip convicted terrorists of their citizenship. It's one of two charter challenges to the law, which Trudeau has promised to repeal.
"As soon as Prime Minister Trudeau convokes his cabinet I'm going to send them a letter and ask," Galati said Tuesday.
"I'm not holding my breath. My appeal is going to be heard in January. If he's going to repeal it before January, great. If not, I don't know."

 

[hkalltheway]

Hi crimesinister. I thank you for the service and dedication that you have provided to this forum and to-be Canadians in general. I hope to hear feedback, and look forward to further updates. A quick question regarding repealing Bill C-24; does this mean the whole bill will be repealed, or will it be certain aspects? Is Galati appealing against the whole bill or certain aspects? Thanks!

 

[crimesinister]

You're most welcome, hkalltheway.

Galatai is challenging the entire bill. The thrust of his argument is that the Governor General erred in granting royal assent to the bill.

The Liberals have yet to tell me whether they plan to repeal almost the entire bill, or just certain sections. I say almost because, obviously, they should not be repealing the sections pertaining to "Lost Canadians".

I shall keep you updated.

 

[Adnan34]

Appreciate your dedication!!!

 

[hkalltheway]

You're most welcome, hkalltheway.

Galatai is challenging the entire bill. The thrust of his argument is that the Governor General erred in granting royal assent to the bill.

The Liberals have yet to tell me whether they plan to repeal almost the entire bill, or just certain sections. I say almost because, obviously, they should not be repealing the sections pertaining to "Lost Canadians".

I shall keep you updated.

Thank you crimesinister. The reason I asked this is because of the new residency requirement in conjunction with no more credit for pre-PR days in Canada impacts my family significantly; I sponsored my wife in 2012 through the inland process, and her sponsorship application took over two years to complete. She had been living here all the time; my children are Canadian, I will be granted citizenship shortly, and under the previous rules, we were hoping that she could apply by October 2016, considering one year of credit prior to PR and two years of living in Canada after PR. Under the new rules, she would have to wait until 2018, which impacts us by two years. We would have liked the opportunity to vote together, identify all of us as Canadians, move on with life, the convenience to travel to Europe for visits, etc. Under the old laws, that dream can be achieved two years shorter.

I don't know about the court systems, but say things rule out in Galati's favor; how long does it usually take repeal the changes once heard in court? Thanks!

 

[amazingTOO]

You're most welcome, hkalltheway.

Galatai is challenging the entire bill. The thrust of his argument is that the Governor General erred in granting royal assent to the bill.

The Liberals have yet to tell me whether they plan to repeal almost the entire bill, or just certain sections. I say almost because, obviously, they should not be repealing the sections pertaining to "Lost Canadians".

I shall keep you updated.

you have been working with Rocco Galati? just curious, how much he paid to CIC for the JR in federal court last time.
I saw cost was award, but no specific number

 

[links18]

Probably better to get a Supreme Court decision ruling this unconstitutional rather than a mere legislative repeal, which could be undone by any subsequent conservative government. In other words, maybe Parliament should wait for this to go through the courts first. Although, I suppose since people have already had their citizenship stripped that there would still be a case to pursue regardless, at least on that element.

 

[amazingTOO]

it seems his jr was time out for higher court?

 

[dpenabill]

Clarification/corrections:

Galati's challenge does NOT seek the invalidation of all the changes made pursuant to Bill C-24. In particular, it is a fairly narrowly drawn challenge. If Galati is granted all the relief requested in his lawsuit, it would have NO impact on the revised requirements for grant citizenship. (While the lawsuit initially sought to prohibit the grant of Royal Assent, that's done, long done. No longer an issue. And, frankly, that aspect of the challenge almost certainly was not viable, not really available relief.)

While perhaps the OP has some direct interaction with someone connected to the Liberal Party who has indicated a plan to repeal Bill C-24 in its entirety, I believe this claim is simply not true, at least not relative to anyone at a decision-making level in the Liberal Party.

In the meantime, the Liberal platform, as referenced and linked in multiple topics here, did not indicate that the Liberals would repeal Bill C-24 in its entirety, but would rollback certain unfair aspects of the new requirements in addition to repealing the provisions creating "two-tiers" of citizenship. In particular, the Liberal platform said it would restore the credit for time spent in Canada as a student or temporary worker. Beyond that it made no specific promises about other changes to the grant citizenship requirements. There have been suggestions (but no definitive source) that the intent to continue to reside in Canada clause would be removed, but this is far from an overt promise.

While there are now a variety of legal challenges to various aspects of the law implemented pursuant to Bill C-24, none that I am aware of involve constitutional challenges to the validity of the grant citizenship requirements. There are, of course, a variety of legal cases involving various aspects of citizenship law as they apply to specific individuals. Some of these may challenge the validity of certain provisions as applied to the particular individual, but again I know of none which challenges the validity of the grant requirements generally. And there is a reason for this: these provisions are almost certainly valid in the law, including the intent to continue to reside in Canada clause.

Any changes to the provisions specifying requirements for naturalized citizenship are really dependent on Parliamentary action to amend or repeal provisions of the current Citizenship Act (as amended by Bill C-24 and other legislative acts).


In the meantime: the Liberals have a lot on their plate; it is, indeed, filled to overflowing

It will take time for even the most urgent matters to get addressed. Many things can be handled in-the-meantime simply by administrative decision. The urgency of dealing with the two-tier citizenship issue, for example, can be mitigated by simply ceasing to exercise the power given to the Minister to revoke citizenship and terminating or suspending any of those proceedings already commenced under the Conservative government. This could allow the Liberals years to fully address this issue (assuming that litigants and the courts are OK with not pursuing existing litigation pending action by the Liberal government).

Years to address changes to the Citizenship Act would be the norm. After all, the serious problems with the previous residency requirement (for grant citizenship) was the focus of severe Judicial criticism, and demands for Parliamentary reform, soon after those requirements were adopted in 1977, and while there were various Parliamentary studies and even some tabled legislation along the way, it was not until 2014, more than three decades after the need for amending the residency requirements was identified, before a bill was actually passed and adopted to fix the problem (Bill C-24), and then another full year before it was implemented. These kinds of changes take time.

 

[crimesinister]

How did we go from

The Liberals have yet to tell me whether they plan to repeal almost the entire bill, or just certain sections

to

While perhaps the OP has some direct interaction with someone connected to the Liberal Party who has indicated a plan to repeal Bill C-24 in its entirety, I believe this claim is simply not true, at least not relative to anyone at a decision-making level in the Liberal Party.

You either has serious issues with reading comprehension, or, you sir, are a liar. A liar who hides behind loquacious language to hide your mendacity.

Galati's challenge does NOT seek the invalidation of all the changes made pursuant to Bill C-24. In particular, it is a fairly narrowly drawn challenge. If Galati is granted all the relief requested in his lawsuit, it would have NO impact on the revised requirements for grant citizenship. (While the lawsuit initially sought to prohibit the grant of Royal Assent, that's done, long done. No longer an issue. And, frankly, that aspect of the challenge almost certainly was not viable, not really available relief.)

Here's the court record A-52-15:

Party NameSolicitorLawyer(s) / file no
GALATI, ROCCO Rocco Galati Law Firm Slansky, Paul
JOHSON, DAVID (RIGHT HONOURABLE GOVERNER GENERAL) - -

Related Cases

T-1476-14 ROCCO GALATI, ET AL v. HIS EXCELLENCY THE RIGHT HONOURABLE GOVERNOR GENERAL S. 18.1 Application for Judicial Review

He's appealing exactly the same case that was adjudged previously by J. Rennie.

You are either clueless, or, you sir, are a liar. Shame on you for misleading the fine folks here.

 

[dpenabill]

I have spent the past few months dedicating myself to defeating Harper. Now that the Tories are gone, I've been thinking about restarting my legal challenge against Bill C-24. However, I'm in communication with the Liberals, and they've clearly indicated that repealing Bill C-24 is a "high priority". They haven't exactly given me timeline.

Meanwhile, my lawyers and I are also keeping an eye out for the outcome of Rocco Galati's appeal of Bill C-24, which will be heard in January. Mr. Galati is also waiting to hear from the Liberals as to whether they'd repeal the bill or not before proceeding.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-left-to-deal-with-constitutional-challenges-to-conservative-laws-1.2630398?hootPostID=cd2d5e3f2cf4a965ae5f777a0ef80837

While perhaps the OP has some direct interaction with someone connected to the Liberal Party who has indicated a plan to repeal Bill C-24 in its entirety, I believe this claim is simply not true, at least not relative to anyone at a decision-making level in the Liberal Party.

To be clear, this is about this part:

"However, I'm in communication with the Liberals, and they've clearly indicated that repealing Bill C-24 is a "high priority". They haven't exactly given me timeline.

And trust me, I am telling the truth when I state "I do not believe this claim." While I cannot say for sure it is false, it is nonetheless accurate to state "I do not believe it is true," enough so to state it explicitly, again at least not "relative to anyone at a decision-making level in the Liberal Party."

Again, the Liberal Party platform is public information easily accessible on the internet, and has been cited and linked in this forum multiple times.

What is misleading is to so much as hint that sometime soon the Liberal Party is likely to roll back the provisions specifying the new requirements for naturalization. As I already noted, in respect to the naturalization requirements the only specific provision the Liberals committed to roll back was the elimination of credit for time in Canada with temporary status. To suggest more is a Liberal "high priority" is inaccurate.

And it is not clear that restoring the temporary time credit is a priority.

The only clear Liberal priority related to Bill C-24 is to repeal the provisions creating "two-tiered citizenship." That, much like the Galati litigation, is only about a small part of Bill C-24 . . . Section 8 in Bill C-24 to be precise. The complete text of Section 8 in Bill C-24 can be found in the Strengthening Canadian Citizen Act (this is link to version granted Royal Assent).


Leading to this:

Here's the court record A-52-15:

Party NameSolicitorLawyer(s) / file no
GALATI, ROCCO Rocco Galati Law Firm Slansky, Paul
JOHSON, DAVID (RIGHT HONOURABLE GOVERNER GENERAL) - -

Related Cases

T-1476-14 ROCCO GALATI, ET AL v. HIS EXCELLENCY THE RIGHT HONOURABLE GOVERNOR GENERAL S. 18.1 Application for Judicial Review

No, that is not the court record. It is an index entry reflecting name and filing number, including certain identifying information such as the court, nature of proceedings (an appeal), names of parties, and such. That offers no real information about the nature of the claims made, their status, or the arguments advanced for or against them. It does not reflect what briefs or memorandum are in the court record, what other supporting documents are in the record. It really reveals nothing other than that there is a court case with that identification number and name (and the name does not necessarily reflect who the actual parties are that are still involved in the litigation).


For anyone interested in more information about the Galati challenge, the best source currently is still the published decision by Justice Rennie.

That decision is linked here, and it includes an extensive description of the substantive claims raised in Galati's lawsuit.

As I previously accurately noted, that challenge is actually a fairly narrowly drawn challenge. In particular, the challenge is that Section 8 in Bill C-24 was beyond the power or authority of Parliament to enact.

While Galati's original challenge ostensibly sought relief against the grant of Royal Assent, and named the Governor General as a party, again the Strengthening Canadian Citizen Act has been granted (this is link to version granted Royal Assent) and it is now in force.

As I noted, the viability of the requested relief against the Governor General's grant of Royal Assent was at best highly questionable to begin with. While Justice Rennie's decision is still in the appellate process, that decision (again linked here) makes rather short work of the requested relief regarding the Governor General's grant of Royal Assent: ". . . the Governor General’s grant of royal assent is not justiciable . . ." (see paragraph 8 in the decision; the full explanation is in Part IV of the decision, paragraphs 32 to 60, which in essence simply explains the legislative function).

While the remainder of Rennie's decision itself goes into great depth ruling as to each of several issues relating to availability of review and the merits of the challenges, as to the issue regarding the Governor General's grant of Royal Assent, Justice Rennie's conclusion is not dependent on any one of his rulings on the substantive claims. And while I am no constitutional law scholar, this issue seems to be one of the easier ones to assess, the outcome rather obvious. As such, the claims against the Governor General were dismissed separately from Justice Rennie's rulings as to the substantive aspects of the challenge.

That is not to say that there can never be a proper case challenging a grant of Royal Assent; there might be where a challenge is based on specified impropriety in the procedure leading to a grant of Royal Assent, such as where there was not a proper vote on the Act in the Senate or a procedural flaw in the third reading process, or for that matter where the facts might show the Governor General was personally disqualified from the position and not a proper official to grant Royal Assent. But no such errors in process are involved or alleged in the Galati lawsuit.

Rather, the Galati lawsuit is structured, almost in its entirety, on the assertion that Section 8 in the SCCA is invalid, its key provisions not within the power or authority of Parliament to enact.

Again, the entirety of Bill C-24 as enacted and granted Royal Assent, is linked here. Section 8 in the SCCA replaces the previous Section 10 in the Citizenship Act (as it was prior to the coming into force of Section 8 in the SCCA) with sections 10., 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, and 10.7 (as these are now part of the Citizenship Act). Most of these deal with procedural matters, including hearings and the availability of appeal and appellate procedure.

But the focus of the Galati challenge is the proposition that Section 10.(2) in the Citizenship Act (as amended by the SCCA), which specifies grounds for revoking citizenship based on acts committed while the person is a citizen, exceeds the power or authority of Parliament (which if this proved true, would render much of sections 10.1 through 10.7 of no effect, except to the extent there are provisions still applicable to procedure in revoking citizenship for fraud or misrepresentation).

The reason I say the challenge is fairly narrowly drawn is that it is only challenging the validity of Section 8 in the SCCA (which adds new version of section 10 plus sections 10. to 10.7 in the Citizenship Act), and no other provisions of Bill C-24. Moreover, the challenge really comes down to the argument that Parliament does not have the power to prescribe the revocation of citizenship for acts committed by a citizen while a citizen.

Justice Rennie, in effect, narrows the substantive focus even more, to the issue of whether there is an inalienable right to citizenship, or Jus Soli. My sense is that Justice Rennie framed the argument in a way to support the decision he intended to make, rather than really addressing the substantive nature of what citizenship is, to what extent it is a right, and to what extent might Parliament take away citizenship otherwise lawfully obtained. That is, I think Justice Rennie's analysis is seriously flawed on the substantive issue. But that is not to say much about how it will be decided by either the Federal Court of Appeal or, if it goes so far, the Supreme Court of Canada.

My sense is that the government will seek to extend the stay already being sought pending legislative action to repeal specific provisions in the current Citizenship Act, subsection 10.(2) and section 10.4 and possibly other provisions in 10.1 through 10.7 which would only apply to 10.(2) grounds for revoking citizenship. But actually doing this could be at least a bit complicated. My guess is that the government will consent to not proceeding on any section 10.(2) grounds pending further legislative action, and seek suspension of the judicial challenges on that basis. Whether the challengers will agree with this, I do not know. Whether the courts will agree with this I do not know.

In the meantime, legislative action takes time. And while repealing "two-tier" citizenship is a priority, there are many other looming priorities as well. I do not know that this legislative action is a "high priority" in terms of timelines. I suspect the new government has other pressing matters which demand more urgent action, especially since the government can in effect just stop any proceedings based on the challenged provisions without having to repeal those provisions.

But nonetheless, the claimed raised against Royal Assent is more or less done, history, not really a matter in contention.

And the Galati challenge is a rather narrow one, which will have NO impact on the requirements for naturalization.

Suggestions to the contrary are unfounded.

Beyond restoring credit for time in Canada prior to landing (which may come relatively soon, as in within a year, but which may take considerably longer), suggestions that the Liberals will soon roll back the new requirements for naturalization are also unfounded.

 

[CanV]

Garbage in, garbage out

 

[amazingTOO]

I know at least belgium and france require less residency requirement for refugee to become a citizen, i have impression so do some other european countries.
Liberal should move all syrian refugees to AB, and let them vote in 2019 ;D
This should be the Bill-1 for next parliament, "easing refugee integration and aberta oil industry development act" :

 

[links18]

And there is a reason for this: these provisions are almost certainly valid in the law, including the intent to continue to reside in Canada clause.

Well, it seems Lorne Waldman is challenging the intent to reside clause, so I think he disagrees with you.

 

[dpenabill]

Well, it seems Lorne Waldman is challenging the intent to reside clause, so I think he disagrees with you.

I know that Lorne Waldman initially criticized the intent to reside clause, before the Bill went to its third reading, including challenging its validity. But those criticisms and challenges, echoed by a number of others, were largely put to rest by the time the Bill was adopted and given Royal Assent. (There has been one lawyer, and a law student, and an American lawyer, who continued to make the argument late into 2014, including the one lawyer's law-review style article published early this year, but that argument was never supported by analysis or sources, not even in the law review style article, and as discussed in other topics here is really not a viable position.)

If you have a source which shows Waldman actually challenging the validity of the intent to reside clause (not just criticising it . . . there are many criticisms regarding whether it should be policy or not) in the courts or in a statement this year I would appreciate an opportunity to see that.

In particular, I would really like to see any substantive analysis of law, with citation to authority, arguing the intent to reside clause is invalid. None has ever been advanced that I have seen. It is, after all, a simple and common requirement.

For emphasis: there is an important distinction between criticisms of the clause, as to whether it should be a requirement or not, and a challenge as to its validity. There is no viable argument I have seen challenging its validity. If one is proffered by anyone that I have not seen, again I would like an opportunity to review it. (I really am following these issues and I do the homework.)