S.C.C. File No. 39749 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL)

Similarly, the Court of Appeal disagrees with the Application Judge’s finding that the alleged “safety valves” of the impugned legislation are “illusory”, because a few of the Appellants in the case used the alleged “safety valves” to avoid removal. [...] Finally, the Court of Appeal interferes with the Application Judge’s finding that detention conditions in the United States are cruel and unusual and cause psychological suffering, in part because, “…broad, system-wide inferences concerning the United States from the limited nature of the individual incidents described in the record cannot be made.”26 In so doing, the Court of Appeal again minimiz. [...] This Court has repeatedly found that the right to access the courts in a timely manner is “one of the foundational pillars protecting the rights and freedoms of our citizens.”37 If upheld, the Court of Appeal’s “constant and firm objection” standard and increased evidentiary requirements could significantly increase preparation time and overwhelm court resources in the assessment of protracted con. [...] With respect to the reasonableness of the ongoing designation of the United States as a “Safe Third Country”, and the sufficiency of the government’s periodic reviews in particular, the Court of Appeal faulted the Appellants for not providing sufficient evidence even though the only evidence not provided was what the government had redacted or refused to disclose. [...] As noted, the Court of Appeal declined to draw adverse inferences from the government’s non-disclosure because the Appellants had not made “constant and firm objection” to the privileges raised.42 This was even though the Appellants had specifically sought all of the relevant government records, conducted a three-day cross-examination of the public servant in charge of the reviews, and successfull.