Federal lawyer describes Abdelrazik’s case against Canada as ‘elaborate theory’

OTTAWA — A federal lawyer denies government responsibility for Abousfian Abdelrazik’s detention in Sudan, saying the Montreal man’s lawsuit against Canada is based on “an elaborate theory” crafted from snippets of evidence.

In closing arguments Thursday in Federal Court, lawyer Andrew Gibbs said “speculation and innuendo” are not enough to establish federal liability for Abdelrazik’s imprisonment abroad.

The Sudanese-born Abdelrazik became a Canadian citizen in the 1990s and was arrested during a 2003 visit to his native country to see his ailing mother.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service officers travelled to Khartoum to interrogate him in October 2003 about suspected extremist links.

Abdelrazik, who denies involvement in terrorism, says he was tortured by Sudanese authorities during two periods of detention.

He is suing the Canadian government, claiming officials had a hand in his arbitrary imprisonment, encouraged his detention and actively obstructed his repatriation to Canada for several years.

His suit also names Lawrence Cannon, a former Conservative foreign affairs minister who denied Abdelrazik an emergency passport to return to Canada in 2009.

Abdelrazik is seeking $20 million from Ottawa and $1 million from Cannon.

Paul Champ, a lawyer for Abdelrazik, told Justice Patrick Gleeson that if the court finds in his client’s favour, it must award “significant and exceptional” damages for the violation of his fundamental human rights.

Abdelrazik filed his claim in 2009 but the matter took years to come to trial as officials scrutinized sensitive internal records relevant to the case.

Over the course of several weeks last fall, the court heard testimony from Abdelrazik, Cannon, current and former CSIS employees and people who played a role in the saga while working for Canada’s foreign ministry or other agencies.

Gibbs said Thursday that in the period following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Abdelrazik was a legitimate national security target and a person of interest to intelligence agencies around the world.

“He chose to return to Sudan, a country with a poor human rights record. Sudan arrested him. Sudan granted CSIS access to him but denied all consular access,” Gibbs said.

“Canadian officials decided to use CSIS access to get Canadian eyes on him. CSIS access led to full consular access, and the file became a consular file complicated by numerous geographic and geopolitical issues.”

Canada did not cause Abdelrazik’s detention and did not torture or otherwise mistreat him, Gibbs said.

“He was a dual citizen detained in Sudan by Sudanese authorities,” he said. “Any mistreatment was at the hands of the Sudanese.”

Abdelrazik returned to Canada in late June 2009 after a judge ruled Ottawa violated his Charter right to enter Canada by denying him a temporary travel document.

Champ told the court Wednesday in his closing submissions that Canadian officials were instrumental in Abdelrazik’s ongoing detention in Sudan, adding their overriding concern was that he not return to Canada.

Canadian officials knew, or ought to have known, that Abdelrazik was at risk while in the custody of Sudanese intelligence, “a fearsome agency well known for brutality and systematic torture,” he said.

Champ argued that when Abdelrazik’s arbitrary detention was no longer tenable, Canada contributed to, or passively accepted, his placement on no-fly lists that further frustrated his right to return to Canada.

Concluding arguments in the case are expected to wrap up Friday. Gleeson is likely to take time to weigh the evidence and testimony before delivering a decision at a later date.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 30, 2025.

Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press