Law Times

PAGE 14 CaseLawLaw SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Extradition And Fugitive Offenders GENERAL Minister erred in failing to apply proper legal principles Accused sought for extradition by Hungary for fraud. Accused previously found to be refu- gees from Hungary as result of violence motivated by their ethnic origin. Minister of Jus- tice ordered accused's surren- der. Minister held that accused must satisfy him on balance of probabilities that they would face persecution if returned that would shock conscience. Minister consulted with De- partment of Citizenship and Immigration and concluded that accused would no longer face persecution in Hungary for their origin. Court of Ap- peal upheld Minister's surren- der. Accused's appeal allowed and case remitted to Minister of Justice for reconsideration. Minister has power to order extradition of refugee to coun- try of origin. Before doing so Minister must be satisfi ed on balance of probabilities that person sought is no longer enti- tled to refugee status and Min- ister may not place burden on person sought to prove current conditions in country seeking extradition. Minister must pro- vide person sought with case to meet and provide opportunity to respond. Minister erred in case at bar by failing to apply proper legal principles. Nemeth v. Canada (Minis- ter of Justice) (Nov. 25, 2010, S.C.C., McLachlin C.J.C., Bin- nie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ., File No. 33016) Decision at 82 W.C.B. (2d) 635 reversed. 93 W.C.B. (2d) 503 (80 pp.). FEDERAL COURT Charter Of Rights MOBILITY RIGHTS Applicant had limited his own mobility rights by being sentenced to prison in United States Applicant sentenced to prison in United States and applied for transfer to Canada pursu- ant to International Transfer of Off enders Act. Minister denied transfer application. Application for judicial review of Minister's decision dismissed. Application for transfer did not engage con- stitutional right to mobility. Ap- plicant had limited his own mo- bility rights by being sentenced to prison in United States. Any infringement of mobility right would be justifi ed. Holmes v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (Feb. 2, 2011, F.C., Phelan J., File No. T-1716- 09) 93 W.C.B. (2d) 473 (22 pp.). Immigration INADMISSIBLE AND REMOVABLE CLASSES Respondent's release into community would cause real and non-speculative irreparable harm Application by Minister for re- spondent's continued detention. Respondent was citizen of Sri Lanka. Respondent worked for terrorist organization identifi ed and listed in Regulations from May 30, 2011 • Law TiMes COURT DECISIONS CaseLaw is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. CaseLaw is a weekly summary of notable unreported civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. Single or multiple copies of the full text of any case digested in this issue can be obtained by: These cases may be found online in BestCase and other electronic resources from Canada Law Book. To subscribe, please call 1-800-565-6967. i) completing and mailing in the order form in this issue; or ii) calling CaseLaw's photocopy department at (905) 841-6472 in Toronto, (800) 263-3269 in Ontario and Quebec, or (800) 263-2037 in other provinces; or iii) faxing a copy of the completed order form to (905) 841-5085. Criminal Code (Can.), Estab- lishing a List of Entities as ter- rorist entity. Respondent arrived in Canada as part of smuggling operation. Minister sought con- tinued detention on basis that respondent was being investi- gated on security grounds. Ap- plication granted. Public inter- est and balance of convenience favoured maintenance of status quo until security issues could be determined on their merits. Given that respondent remained security risk whom Minister had not had suffi cient opportu- nity to investigate, respondent's release into community would cause real and non-speculative irreparable harm. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. B232 (Mar. 7, 2011, F.C., Shore J., File No. IMM-1111-11) 199 A.C.W.S. (3d) 557 (23 pp.). Privacy Legislation ACCESS TO RECORD For Canadian Border Service Agency to reveal information would prejudice past, ongoing or future investigation Applicant requested access to applicant's record with Cana- dian Boarder Service Agency. Applicant was given some infor- mation but part of fi le was with- held or provided in redacted form. Agency claimed they were exempt from providing infor- mation. Application for judicial review was dismissed. Sections 16(1)(a), 16(1)(b) and 24 of Ac- cess to Information Act (Can.), applied. Documents could not be segregated one from other. Agency exercised discretion reasonably. To reveal informa- tion would prejudice past, ongo- ing or future investigation and would reveal investigative tech- niques as well as customs infor- mation. Record was less than 20 years old at time of request. Schertzer v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (Feb. 28, 2011, F.C., Harrington J., File No. T-2184-09) 199 A.C.W.S. (3d) 336 (8 pp.). ONTARIO CRIMINAL CASES Charter Of Rights SEARCH AND SEIZURE Officer's decision to order strip search was considered one and based on facts of case as opposed to following of policy Accused convicted of impaired driving. Accused applied for stay of proceedings based on breach of s. 8 Charter rights. Follow- ing his breath tests, accused was stripped search before being housed in police cells to sober up. Accused refused to answer when asked if there was anyone who could pick him from station. Offi cer testifi ed he could not en- sure that accused would remain segregated from other prisoners. Application dismissed. Given that accused's breath readings were almost three times legal limit, decision to lodge accused in cells was unassailable. Search was conducted in as respectful manner as possible, although it was inherently degrading and humiliating. Strip search was warrantless search and was prima facie unreasonable. Of- fi cer testifi ed as to individual assessment he undertook and made decision he would not ordinarily make given that he could not ensure segregation of prisoners. Offi cer's decision to order search was considered one and was based on facts of CANADIAN LAW LIST 2011 YOUR INSTANT CONNECTION TO CANADA'S LEGAL NETWORK Inside you will find: an up-to-date alphabetical listing • • • and judges in Canada; contact information boards, commissions and Crown corporations; legal and government contact information of more than 58,000 barristers, solicitors and Quebec notaries, corporate counsel, law firms for the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada, Federal Cabinet Ministers, departments, related to each province for the Courts of Appeal, Supreme Courts, County and District Courts, Provincial Courts, law societies, law schools, Legal Aid, and other law-related offices of importance. MORE THAN A PHONE BOOK Hardbound • Published February each year • On subscription $146 • L0084-8573-26084 • One-time purchase $162 • L0084-8573 • ISSN 0084-8573 Visit canadalawbook.ca or call 1.800.387.5164 for a 30-day no-risk evaluation Prices subject to change without notice,to applicable taxes and shipping & handling. CANADA LAW BOOK® www.lawtimesnews.com CLL - 1-4 page - 5X.indd 1 5/25/11 9:38:07 AM case as opposed to following of policy. Offi cer was entitled to order search and there was no s. 8 Charter violation. R. v. Aziz (Mar. 1, 2011, Ont. C.J., Robertson J., File No. 316453) 93 W.C.B. (2d) 476 (9 pp.). TRIAL WITHIN REASONABLE TIME Global delay of 11.5 months excessive for simple provincial court matter Application by accused, who was charged with impaired driv- ing and with driving with blood alcohol level over legal limit, for stay of proceedings because his right under s. 11(b) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be tried within reasonable pe- riod of time had been violated. Accused was charged on June 29, 2008. Total delay between date of accused's arrest and his third scheduled trial date was 28 months. Accused was initially represented by agent. When agent was disqualifi ed he retained counsel. Application allowed. Accused consistently pressed to have his trial heard as soon as possible and he never ap- plied for adjournment. His only contribution to delay was his un- fortunate choice of agent rather than qualifi ed lawyer to rep- resent him. Non-neutral delay that was subject to Charter scru- tiny consisted of eight months of institutional delay related to fi rst trial date, three months refer- able to third trial date and two and half weeks attributable to Crown's conduct. Global delay was 11.5 months which was ex- cessive for this simple provincial court matter. Accused suff ered specifi c prejudice. He had to at- tend court on two dozen occa- sions. He suff ered loss of income with each attendance and his repeated court-related absences

• Cover
• Second Chance
• Expert Immunity
• Focus On Criminal Law