CITATION: Canada (Attorney General) v. Godbout, 2009 ONCA 835
DATE: 20091126
DOCKET: C50602
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Winkler C.J.O., Doherty and Feldman JJ.A.
BETWEEN
The Minister of Justice for Canada
Respondent
and
Rodney Michael Godbout
Appellant
David Soper, for the appellant
Chris de Sa, for the respondent
Heard and orally released: November 23, 2009
On appeal from the decision of the Minister of Justice ordering surrender to the United States dated November 7, 2008.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Minister ordering the applicant surrendered to the United States for prosecution pursuant to the terms of the relevant treaty between Canada and the United States. There are three issues raised on the appeal.
The Section 6 Issue
[2] The question of when the acknowledged infringement of a Canadian citizen’s s. 6 rights by his extradition to a foreign country is justified under s. 1 of the Charter is a fact-specific inquiry. That inquiry is largely a political assessment powered in part by an appreciation of Canada’s international obligations. The factors referred to by the Minister in his letter indicating that the applicant would be ordered surrendered were all properly taken into account by the Minister on the s. 6 inquiry. The weight to be assigned to the various factors was a matter primarily for the Minister and not for this court. We cannot say that an order of surrender in all of the circumstances was unreasonable.
The Section 7 Claim
[3] The Canadian prosecutorial authorities were entitled to stay the Canadian charges and rethink the prosecution position on a plea bargain when the American authorities requested extradition in respect of one of the allegations contained in the Canadian charges. The Canadian authorities’ subsequent prosecution of the applicant and his guilty plea pursuant to a second plea bargain entered into with full knowledge of the pending extradition proceedings does not raise anything by way of Crown conduct that could possibly constitute an abuse of process.
The Compassion Grounds
[4] The Minister was advised of extenuating family circumstances. He took those into account in considering whether to exercise his discretion in favour of ordering surrender. We cannot say that his decision to order surrender in the light of these extenuating facts was unreasonable.
[5] The application is dismissed.
“Winkler C.J.O.”
“Doherty J.A.”
“K. Feldman J.A.”