| Summary: | This thesis explores ways in which perspectives in Canada on the administration of justice
have shifted after September 11, 2001, in criminal and administrative law. The
introductory chapter sets out the general context of my thesis, including a discussion of
the development of due process and constitutional rights, and a brief comparison between
American, British and Canadian legislative responses to 9 /11. Chapter 2 concerns the
context, in which the Canadian Anti-terrorism Act (2001) was drafted, the government's
understanding of its purpose and function, and critical reception of the Act. In the face of
considerable skepticism, the government (and a minority of sympathetic figures) insisted
upon the consistency of the Act with the Canadian Charier of Rights and Freedoms, and argued
that it struck a balance between individual and communal interests in a new yet
appropriate fashion. Chapter 3 focuses on judicial responses to anti-terror legislation,
including provisions dealings with 'security certificate' detentions; the deportation of
terrorist suspects to face the risk of torture; and provisions of the Anti- terrorism Act. The
cases suggest a general tendency to justify or rationalize departures, from traditional
notions of due process, constitutionalism and 'fundamental justice' (in section 7 of the
Charter) as appropriate, balanced, and normal. Chapter 4 addresses the problem of
accountability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies in light of the post-9/11
amendments to the Canada Evidence Act that significantly expand the scope of state secrecy
and privilege in 'national security' matters. === Law, Peter A. Allard School of === Graduate
|
|---|
