[371] My preliminary view of the reasonableness of the decision may have prevailed following
the hearing due to excellent advocacy on the part of counsel for the Attorney General of Canada
had I not taken the time to carefully deliberate about the evidence and submissions, particularly
those of the CCLA and CCF. Their participation in these proceedings has demonstrated again the
value of public interest litigants. Especially in presenting informed legal argument. This case
may not have turned out the way it has without their involvement, as the private interest litigants
were not as capable of marshalling the evidence and argument in support of their applications.
[372] I have concluded that the decision to issue the Proclamation does not bear the hallmarks
of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and was not justified in
relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that were required to be taken into
consideration. In my view, there can be only one reasonable interpretation of EA sections 3 and
17 and paragraph 2(c) of the CSIS Act and the Applicants have established that the legal
constraints on the discretion of the GIC to declare a public order emergency were not satisfied.