Can. (A.G.) v. Raghoonanan (2003), 168 O.A.C. 329 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2003] O.A.C. TBEd. FE.029
The Attorney General for Canada and The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (respondents) v. Simon Raghoonanan (applicant)
(M29486; C35694)
Indexed As: Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Raghoonanan
Ontario Court of Appeal
Simmons, J.A.
February 13, 2003.
Summary:
Raghoonanan was committed for extradition to Trinidad and Tobago on charges of murder and accessory after the fact to murder. He appealed the committal order. He applied for interim release pending the appeal. He also applied for interim release pending the Minister’s surrender decision.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, per Simmons, J.A., granted interim release pending the Minister’s surrender decision. Simmons, J.A., adjourned the application for release pending the appeal of the committal order.
Extradition – Topic 2961
Provisional arrest and detention – Bail or interim release – General – When appropriate – Raghoonanan (the applicant) was committed for extradition to Trinidad and Tobago on charges of murder and accessory after the fact to murder – The mandatory sentence for murder in Trinidad and Tobago was death by hanging – The applicant applied for interim release pending the Minister’s surrender decision – The Ontario Court of Appeal, per Simmons, J.A., allowed the application – The issue for the Minister’s consideration was not frivolous – The applicant established that he would surrender himself – He, inter alia, had roots in Ontario, had no criminal record or history of failing to appear or breaching court orders and there was no evidence of any attempt to evade the charges – His detention pending the decision was not necessary in the public interest – Although, inter alia, the charges were serious, the prosecution’s case was less than formidable – Also, the applicant had been waiting for the Minister’s decision for over 14 months – See paragraphs 40 to 56.
Extradition – Topic 2970
Provisional arrest and detention – Bail or interim release – Evidence and proof – Section 20 of the Extradition Act provided that s. 679 of the Criminal Code applied “with any modifications that the circumstances require” to an application for interim release pending, inter alia, a determination of an appeal from an order of committal – Section 679(3) of the Code provided that an appellant could be released pending an appeal if he could establish that, inter alia, “(c) his detention is not necessary in the public interest” – The Ontario Court of Appeal, per Simmons, J.A., agreed with the submission that “in the extradition context, the public interest in having the committal order enforced weighs less heavily against the granting of bail than does the public interest in immediate enforcement of a sentence where the appeal is against a criminal conviction” – See paragraphs 34 and 35.
Extradition – Topic 2970
Provisional arrest and detention – Bail or interim release – Evidence and proof – Section 20 of the Extradition Act provided that s. 679 of the Criminal Code applied “with any modifications that the circumstances require” to an application for interim release pending, inter alia, the Minister’s surrender decision – Section 679(3) of the Code provided that an appellant could be released pending his appeal if he could establish that, inter alia, “(a) the appeal or application for leave to appeal is not frivolous” – The Ontario Court of Appeal, per Simmons, J.A., rejected the argument that s. 679(3)(a) should be ignored in an application for bail pending the Minister’s surrender decision – Simmons, J.A., agreed that the modified test with respect to s. 679(3)(a) should be “whether the issues raised in the applicant’s submissions to the Minister are not frivolous” – See paragraphs 36 to 39.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Farinacci (L.W.) et al. (1993), 67 O.A.C. 197; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 32 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].
RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 36].
United States of America v. Shephard, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067; 9 N.R. 215, refd to. [para. 38, footnote 1].
United States of America v. Burns and Rafay (2001), 265 N.R. 212; 148 B.C.A.C. 1; 243 W.A.C. 1; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 41].
Statutes Noticed:
Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18, sect. 20 [para. 32].
Counsel:
John Norris, for the applicant;
Bradley Reitz, for the respondent.
This application was heard in Chambers on February 7, 2003, by Simmons, J.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on February 13, 2003.
