COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE OF CANADA (Respondents) v. NUNZIO LA ROSA (Applicant/Appellant)
BEFORE: DOHERTY, GOUDGE and MACPHERSON JJ.A.
COUNSEL: Paul Slansky
for the appellant
Bradley Reitz
for the respondent
HEARD: November 13, 2002
ORALLY
RELEASED: November 13, 2002
On application for judicial review of the surrender order of the Minister of Justice dated December 22, 2000 and on appeal from the order of Wren J. dated June 18, 2001.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1This endorsement addresses the motion and appeals outstanding after the decision of this court in La Rosa v. The Queen and United States of America reported at (2002), 2002 45027 (ON CA), 166 C.C.C. (3d) 449.
2Counsel for the appellant indicated that insofar as the abuse of process argument was directed at the surrender order of the Minister, it depended entirely on the assertion that the “Cotroni” assessment performed in February 1999 constituted a decision to extradite the appellant. It did not amount to a decision to extradite the appellant, but rather was an assessment of the merits of an extradition should a request for extradition be made. That request was in fact made some months later. Consequently, there is no air of reality to the claim that the Minister’s decision constitutes an abuse of process. The motion for production and disclosure insofar as it relates to the abuse of process claim and the Minister’s decision is dismissed. The application for judicial review of the Minister’s decision insofar as it is based on an abuse of process claim is also dismissed.
3With respect to s. 6(1) of the Charter, we are satisfied that the Minister’s decision to extradite in all of the circumstances was reasonable. There is nothing in the weighing of the factors relevant to that decision set out in the Minister’s letter that lends any air of reality to the claim that the Minister acted in bad faith. We are also satisfied that the appellant was provided with a full record which permitted the appellant to assert any claim available under s. 6(1). The motion for production and disclosure as it relates to the s. 6(1) claim is dismissed. The application for judicial review insofar as it rests on s. 6(1) of the Charter is dismissed.
4It is also argued that the Minister failed to give adequate consideration to the claims of ill health advanced by the appellant. The Minister acted reasonably in rejecting those largely unsubstantiated claims. There is no basis upon which we can interfere with that aspect of her decision. We would add that in the two years since the surrender order was made, the appellant has not produced any material documentation substantiating his claim that he has severe medical problems.
5With respect to the motion brought under s. 69 of the Extradition Act, we agree with the conclusion of Wren J.
6The motion for production and disclosure is dismissed. The application for judicial review of the Minister’s decision is dismissed. The appeal from the order of Wren J. is dismissed.
“Doherty J.A.”
“S.T. Goudge J.A.”
“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”