SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Citation: United Mexican States v. Ortega; United States of America v. Fiessel, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 120, 2006 SCC 34

Date: 20060721

Docket: 30998

Between:

(Jose) Raul Monter Ortega

Appellant

and

Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United Mexican States

Respondent

And between:

Robert Shull, Terry Shull and Leonard Fiessel

Appellants

and

Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States of America

Respondent

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.

Reasons for Judgment: (paras. 1 to 3)

McLachlin C.J. (Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ. concurring)

United Mexican States v. Ortega; United States of America v. Fiessel, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 120, 2006 SCC 34

(Jose) Raul Monter Ortega Appellant

v.

Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United Mexican States Respondent

‑ and ‑

Robert Shull, Terry Shull and Leonard Fiessel Appellants

v.

Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States of America Respondent

Indexed as: United Mexican States v. Ortega; United States of America v. Fiessel

Neutral citation: 2006 SCC 34.

File No.: 30998.

2006: March 23; 2006: July 21.

Present: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia

Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Liberty and security of person — Fundamental justice — Extradition — Committal hearing — Whether provisions of extradition legislation relating to evidence at committal hearing permit extradition on unavailable evidence — If so, whether provisions infringe principles of fundamental justice applicable to extradition — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 — Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18, ss. 29, 32(1)(b).

Extradition of the appellants was sought, by Mexico in one case and the US in the other, under the treaty method provided for in s. 32(1)(b) of the Extradition Act. The appellants alleged that s. 32(1)(b) infringes s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because the treaty method does not contain a requirement that the evidence tendered at the committal hearing be certified as available for trial in the requesting state. In both cases the extradition judges accepted the constitutional objection, but the Court of Appeal set aside those decisions and remitted the matters to the extradition judges.

Held: The appeals should be allowed and the cases returned to the extradition judges.

For the reasons given in United States of America v. Ferras, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 77, 2006 SCC 33, s. 32(1)(b) of the Extradition Act is constitutional. [1‑3]

Cases Cited

Followed: United States of America v. Ferras, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 77, 2006 SCC 33.

Statutes and Regulations Cited

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 7.

Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18, s. 32(1)(b).

APPEALS from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (Donald, Smith and Thackray JJ.A.) (2005), 253 D.L.R. (4th) 237, 212 B.C.A.C. 228, 350 W.A.C. 228, 196 C.C.C. (3d) 225, [2005] B.C.J. No. 1090 (QL), 2005 BCCA 270, setting aside a judgment of Koenigsberg J. (2004), 237 D.L.R. (4th) 281, 183 C.C.C. (3d) 75, 117 C.R.R. (2d) 191, 118 C.R.R. (2d) 189, [2004] B.C.J. No. 402 (QL), 2004 BCSC 210, and a judgment of Goepel J., [2004] B.C.J. No. 1434 (QL), 2004 BCSC 908, dismissing applications for committal. Appeals allowed.

Richard C. C. Peck, Q.C., and Eric V. Gottardi, for the appellant (Jose) Raul Monter Ortega.

David J. Martin, for the appellants Robert Shull, Terry Shull and Leonard Fiessel.

Robert Frater and Janet Henchey, for the respondents.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by

1The Chief Justice — These appeals, together with the appeals by Ferras, Latty and Wright (United States of America v. Ferras; United States of America v. Latty, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 77, 2006 SCC 33 (the “Ferras appeals”)), released concurrently, raise the constitutionality of provisions of the Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18, relating to the evidence that can be put before an extradition judge. For the reasons given in the Ferras appeals, I conclude that the challenged provisions are constitutional. However, I would allow the appeals and return the cases to the extradition judges for determination in accordance with the interpretation of the Act set out in those reasons.

2It will be open to the United Mexican States and the United States of America to supplement the evidence by showing that the evidence is available for trial.

3The constitutional questions are answered as follows:

1. Does s. 32(1)(b) of the Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18, in whole or in part, infringe the rights and freedoms guaranteed by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Answer: No.

2. If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Answer: It is unnecessary to answer this question.

Appeals allowed.