You continued with your argument, not even beginning to address mine on the nature of the 2010 remedy (main point),  or the length of time he was there.  

Whether or not the US was going to release him early on - in the actual circumstances - is hardly the point - the point is that Canada participated in that early on, then bloody-mindedly chose not to ask later.  If you think there would be no remedy for that, why do you think the SCC wrote what it did?

To say that  'it was inferred by the SCC but not proven that the Charter breaches exacerbated Khadr's situation' is quite the statement.  What do you think the SCC itself would think of it?

"we conclude on the record before us that Canada’s active participation in what was at the time an illegal regime has contributed and continues to contribute to Mr. Khadr’s current detention, which is the subject of his current claim."

Harper made it a habit of refusing to listen to DOJ legal advice.  Trudeau, not so much.