I believe you're likely correct. Khadr's lawyers obtained SCC judgments that established a prima facie case that a Charter violation had occurred and on this basis obtained injunctive remedy for such. But establishing civil damages is another matter altogether. This issue should have proceeded through and been concluded in the courts, where the issues of the applicability of the Charter in matters of national security, particularly where third parties like the U.S. are involved, as well as the extent to which individual behavior can be held to mitigate Charter-related damages (i.e. moral hazard) should have been determined. In an era where the government is seeking to prevent others from joining terrorist organizations abroad, the costs of pursuing this case in the courts, whatever the outcome, would have been minor in comparison to the value of judicial clarity. The settlement, meanwhile, leaves Canadian taxpayers unprotected and exposed.