Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant challenged NSIRA’s dismissal of his complaint, alleging it lacked jurisdiction and was frivolous.

• NSIRA determined the complaint did not relate to an “activity carried out by CSIS” as required under section 16 of the NSIRA Act.

• The agency also found the complaint lacked any evidentiary basis and was therefore frivolous.

• A significant portion of the allegations had already been reviewed and dismissed in a 2008 complaint, leading to a finding of res judicata.

• The court rejected arguments that NSIRA misinterpreted its statutory mandate or breached procedural fairness.

• Judicial review was dismissed, and the Attorney General of Canada was awarded $6,000 in costs.

Facts and outcome of the case

The applicant, Gareth Llewellyn, sought judicial review of a decision by the National Security Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA), which had dismissed his complaint against the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). Mr. Llewellyn alleged that CSIS subjected him to over 30 years of surveillance, harassment, defamation, and interference in both his personal and professional life. His complaint, totaling 203 pages and covering 53 specific allegations, included claims that CSIS disrupted his employment, orchestrated medical mistreatment, surveilled him internationally, and conducted threat reduction measures (TRMs) against him. He also alleged a campaign involving other government departments, including the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), and asserted that a former Prime Minister played a role in the campaign.

Many of these allegations were rooted in earlier incidents already raised in a similar complaint made by Mr. Llewellyn to NSIRA’s predecessor, the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), in 2008. SIRC had also concluded it lacked jurisdiction and that the allegations were frivolous. In the current case, NSIRA again found that some of the new claims duplicated the earlier complaint and were therefore barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

Mr. Llewellyn argued that NSIRA misinterpreted its mandate under section 16 of the NSIRA Act by requiring evidence of operational conduct and improperly conflated the two jurisdictional criteria: (1) the activity being one carried out by CSIS and (2) the complaint not being frivolous or vexatious. He also argued that NSIRA’s process was procedurally unfair and that he was denied a meaningful opportunity to participate, in part because of redactions made under the Canada Evidence Act.

The court found NSIRA’s decision to be reasonable, supported by the record, and compliant with its statutory mandate. The court concluded that there was no objective evidence that any of the alleged activities had been carried out by CSIS. NSIRA had undertaken a thorough review, including searching CSIS records and conducting a quality assurance check. The agency found no evidence of operational activity, nor of any threat reduction measures taken against Mr. Llewellyn.

On the issue of procedural fairness, the court held that NSIRA followed its own published procedures and afforded the applicant an adequate opportunity to present and supplement his complaint. The court emphasized that Mr. Llewellyn had submitted most of the materials that formed the basis of the tribunal record and was well aware of its content, even though three documents were partially redacted for national security reasons.

As a result, the court dismissed the application for judicial review and found that NSIRA had not erred in law or acted unfairly. The Attorney General of Canada, as the respondent, was awarded costs in the agreed amount of $6,000.