"As Khadr is the first case of treason post-Charter, the situation should have been fully adjudicated by the courts."

Khadr's is not a case of treason. No treason on his part was ever alleged by any authority, Canadian or American. Yet you would have the lawsuit adjudicated on the basis of a charge and conviction that never existed. Your personal bias against Khadr is clearly evident.

"3. Remedy should not be one-size-fits-all as advocated by many here -- it should fit the unique circumstances of each case..."

I don't know of anyone who was advocating that. However, you're correct in principle. Each case of a Charter breech will be unique. Hence the "remedy" sought in each case will be different. Khadr did attempt a different remedy than what was awarded Mr. Arar: he asked for double that award. And it was an entirely reasonable figure based on his unique case and the Arar precedent. Canadian taxpayers are lucky that he agreed to settle for less.