A false assumption is being made by many who believe that the prior SCC decisions regarding the violation of Khadr's Charter rights establish civil damages. That's not the way things work. Those decisions established a prima facie case that Khadr's rights were violated and the decisions were satisfied when he was returned to Canada. Civil damages, however, have to be established separately in a court of law. Any award for damages would no doubt have been challenged in higher courts by the side  disagreeing with the award, but the courts can take into the potentially deleterious impacts of an award, which in this case would surely include the matter of moral hazard. As any substantial award would have done, the Khadr settlement establishes an incentive for others to take serious risks (i.e. joining terrorist organizations abroad) for which others could incur significant costs. This is an untenable outcome and should have been addressed by a court rather than by Trudeau's cabinet.