I haven't had a case in which the evidence has supported the denial of a transfer. All of the investigations by the Correctional Service of Canada have usually supported the transfer. They have said that the intelligence information determines that this person is not a threat to the security of Canada or is not a terrorist or will not commit a criminal organization offence. Sometimes they say, well, there's some information that there may be a link to a criminal organization, if they're involved in a drug trafficking case, but often they go on to then say there's nothing to indicate that this person was anything more than a courier or a mule.
So usually the evidence doesn't support the minister's opinion, and that has been the basis for the courts finding the decisions to be unreasonable and setting them aside--because many of the courts have decided to duck the section 6 issue, hoping it gets resolved in the court of appeal. So reasonableness is going to be the test, whether these amendments come in or not, and section 1 of the charter, which I have set out in the materials I've handed in, shows the various criteria.
That's going to be the main issue if section 6 is engaged. We do have the Van Vlymen case, in which the Federal Court found that section 6 was engaged and found that the government had wilfully violated his section 6 and section 7 rights in bad faith for a period of nine and a quarter years.
One of the major problems ongoing at the moment is the length of the delay between the time the file reaches the minister's office and a decision is made. We have cases now that are up to three years in the minister's office.