Lake v. Can. (2008), 236 O.A.C. 371 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
…………………….
Temp. Cite: [2008] O.A.C. TBEd. MY.081
Talib Steven Lake (appellant) v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (respondent)
(31631; 2008 SCC 23; 2008 CSC 23)
Indexed As: Lake v. Canada (Minister of Justice)
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.
May 8, 2008.
Summary:
Lake, a dual American and Canadian citizen, faced extradition to the United States to stand trial on a charge of unlawfully distributing nearly 100 grams of crack cocaine in Detroit, Michigan. He was committed for surrender after an extradition hearing, and the Minister of Justice ordered his surrender. Lake applied for judicial review.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported [2006] O.A.C. Uned. 587, dismissed the application. Lake appealed, arguing that extradition would unjustifiably infringe his mobility rights (Charter, s. 6(1)). Further, Lake claimed that the Minister erred in his assessment of the factors set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in U.S.A. v. Controni (1989) and in his conclusion that extradition was preferable to prosecution in Canada. He also submitted that the Minister failed to provide adequate reasons as to why extradition was preferred.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Minister provided sufficient reasons for his decision to order Lake’s surrender. That decision was reviewable on a standard of reasonableness, and it was reasonable. The court therefore dismissed the appeal.
Civil Rights – Topic 525
Mobility rights – Right to remain in Canada – Extradition – Lake, a dual American and Canadian citizen, pleadeded guilty of conspiracy to traffic in a controlled substance and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment – After he had served his Canadian sentence, the United States sought to extradite him to stand trial on a trafficking offence, arising out of the same events – The Minister of Justice ordered his surrender – Lake applied for judicial review – The appeal court dismissed the application – Lake appealed, arguing that extradition would unjustifiably infringe his mobility rights (Charter, s. 6(1)) – Further, he claimed that the Minister erred in his assessment of the factors set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in U.S.A. v. Controni (1989) and in his conclusion that extradition was preferable to prosecution in Canada – He also submitted that the Minister failed to provide adequate reasons as to why extradition was preferred – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Minister identified the proper test and provided sufficient reasons for his decision to order Lake’s surrender – That decision was reviewable on a standard of reasonableness, and it was reasonable – The court therefore dismissed the appeal.
Extradition – Topic 8
General – Extradition – Application of Charter – The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the nature of the extradition process and its status under the Charter – See paragraphs 21 to 33.
Extradition – Topic 3383
Surrender to demanding country – Procedure – Reasons for decision – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 525
].
Extradition – Topic 3947
Practice – Judicial review – Decision to surrender (incl. standard of review) – The Supreme Court of Canada held that a reviewing court owed deference to a decision by the Minister of Justice to order surrender, including the Minister’s assessment of an individual’s Charter rights – The court stated that reasonableness was the appropriate standard of review for the Minister’s decision, regardless of whether the fugitive argued that extradition would infringe his or her Charter rights – See paragraphs 34 to 41.
Extradition – Topic 3947
Practice – Judicial review – Decision to surrender (incl. standard of review) – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 525
].
Cases Noticed:
United States of America v. Cotroni; United States of America v. El Zein, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469; 96 N.R. 321; 23 Q.A.C. 182, refd to. [para. 1].
United States of America v. Kwok, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 532; 267 N.R. 310; 145 O.A.C. 36; 2001 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 17].
Schmidt v. Canada et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 500; 76 N.R. 12; 20 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 18].
United States of America v. Allard and Charette, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 564; 75 N.R. 260, refd to. [para. 18].
Idziak v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 631; 144 N.R. 327; 59 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 22].
Bonamie, Re (2001), 293 A.R. 201; 257 W.A.C. 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].
Hurley v. United States of Mexico et al. (1997), 101 O.A.C. 121; 35 O.R.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].
Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 25].
United States of America v. Taylor (2003), 182 B.C.A.C. 83; 300 W.A.C. 83; 175 C.C.C.(3d) 185 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].
R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 29].
R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1, refd to. [para. 29].
Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779; 129 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 32].
United States of America v. Burns and Rafay, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283; 265 N.R. 212; 148 B.C.A.C. 1; 243 W.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 32].
New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 34].
Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3; 281 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 38].
Canada (Minister of Justice) v. Stewart (1998), 117 B.C.A.C. 284; 191 W.A.C. 284; 131 C.C.C.(3d) 423 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 40].
United States of America v. Gillingham (2004), 201 B.C.A.C. 26; 328 W.A.C. 26; 184 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 40].
United States of America v. Maydak (2004), 203 B.C.A.C. 60; 332 W.A.C. 60; 190 C.C.C.(3d) 71 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 40].
United States of America v. Kunze – see Kunze v. Canada (Minister of Justice).
Kunze v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (2004), 209 B.C.A.C. 32; 345 W.A.C. 32; 194 C.C.C.(3d) 422 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 40].
Hanson v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (2005), 209 B.C.A.C. 113; 345 W.A.C. 113; 195 C.C.C.(3d) 46, not folld. [para. 40].
United States of America v. Fordham (2005), 211 B.C.A.C. 195; 349 W.A.C. 195; 196 C.C.C.(3d) 39 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 40].
Ganis v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (2006), 233 B.C.A.C. 243; 386 W.A.C. 243; 216 C.C.C.(3d) 337 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 40].
R. v. Sheppe, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 22; 31 N.R. 437, refd to. [para. 44].
United States of America v. Jamieson – see Jamieson v. Canada (Minister of Justice).
Jamieson v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 465; 197 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 48].
Whitley v. United States of America (1994), 75 O.A.C. 100; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 99 (C.A.), affd. [1996] 1 S.C.R. 467; 197 N.R. 169; 91 O.A.C. 121, refd to. [para. 48].
Ross v. United States of America (1994), 51 B.C.A.C. 1; 84 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), affd. [1996] 1 S.C.R. 469; 197 N.R. 32; 75 B.C.A.C. 239; 123 W.A.C. 239, refd to. [para. 48].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 6(1) [para. 1].
Counsel:
John Norris, for the appellant;
Robert J. Frater and Jeffrey G. Johnston, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Ruby & Edwardh, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;
Attorney General of Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on December 6, 2007, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following decision of the court was delivered by LeBel, J., on May 8, 2008, in both official languages.
