It's entire reasonable to assert that the SCC's rulings were satisfied when the government sought and obtained Khadr's return to Canada. The establishment of a prima facie case for civil damages, another outcome of the SCC rulings, is not the same thing as actually determining the extent of those damages. The argument that this matter should have been determined in the courts is eminently legitimate. Many assert that such claims are routinely settled, as the government and its supporters have done, however there's a compelling counterargument which holds that Charter-related civil damages claims are unique and therefore more appropriately determined in the courts. And, by the way, the opinions of 71% of Canadians (or 99%, as you put it) are of value as in a democracy the legal system has to be seen as legitimate in order to be sustained. The law doesn't function only in an austere academic vacuum.