COURT FILE AND PARTIES
COURT FILE NO.: CR129000018300
DATE: 20130412
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA OF BEHALF OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
Applicant
– and –
MIROSLAV JAKOVLJEVIC
Respondent/Person Sought
Adrienne Rice, for the Applicant
Dragi Zekavica, for the Respondent
HEARD: April 5, 2013, at Toronto, Ontario
michael g. quigley j.
Reasons For Ruling Re: Extradition Request
Overview
[1] The Minister of Justice of Canada has authorized the Attorney General to apply to for the extradition of Mr. Jakovljevic under the Extradition Act (the “Act”). The Federal Republic of Germany claims that Mr. Jakovljevic was a participant in a series of robberies and an alleged conspiracy with others to commit robbery perpetrated against a number of gas stations, a convenience store and an Italian restaurant/pizzeria in several different towns in Hesse in the Federal Republic of Germany. They want Mr. Jakovljevic returned to Germany to face trial there on those charges.
[2] A public prosecutor in Darmstadt, Mr. Michael Pehle, has certified a Record of the Case (“ROC”) and a Supplemental ROC against Mr. Jakovljevic. Mr. Pehle certifies in the ROCs that sufficient evidence has been gathered and will be advanced to justify Mr. Jakovljevic’s prosecution under German law as a participant in those crimes, and that the documentary evidence contained in the Supplemental ROC is available for trial and was gathered in accordance with the laws of Germany. The Attorney General says that those ROCs comply with the provisions of the Act.
[3] The question in this case is whether Mr. Jakovljevic ought to be committed for extradition to Germany. While claiming that he has an alibi that will ultimately result in his exoneration, his counsel does not dispute that the evidence presented in the ROC and the Supplemental ROC is sufficient to meet the test for extradition. However, he claims there are other serious procedural deficiencies present in this case, deficiencies that must cause the extradition request to be denied.
[4] There were four lines of attack advanced by counsel for Mr. Jakovljevic. I was invited to judicially review the conduct of the Minister in issuing the Authority to Proceed (“ATP”) and in delegating that task to a member of the International Assistance Group within the Department of Justice. Mr. Jakovljevic also says that the Minister of Justice in Canada should not have issued the ATP since the extradition request does not come directly from the German Minister of Justice, but rather from a mere Public Prosecutor in Darmstadt, Hesse. Finally, counsel for Mr. Jakovljevic claims that I cannot be satisfied that he was properly arrested. Thus, he claims that the Minister of Justice in Canada could not have been satisfied that the requirements of the Act were met, such as to issue the ATP in the absence of an Interpol arrest warrant which he claims ought to have been present and the foundation for Mr. Jakovljevic’s arrest.
[5] In my view, however, as I explain in these reasons, there is no merit to these alleged procedural deficiencies. Given that conclusion, and since there is no dispute that the evidence presented in the ROC and the Supplemental ROC is sufficient to meet the test for extradition, I am satisfied for the reasons that follow that the Attorney General has met the requirements and that it is appropriate to extradite Mr. Jakovljevic to the Federal Republic of Germany.
Factual Background
[6] Mr. Jakovljevic is wanted in Germany for prosecution on charges of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. These relate to incidents that took place in October of 2010 and the summer of 2011. On October 22, 2010 at 1:30 in the morning, the ROC records that two men entered a pizzeria in Eppertshausen. There were two men inside that restaurant. One was Rahmo Duganhodzic (“Duganhodzic”), who worked there, and the other was Franjo Simic (“Simic”). One of the two assailants pointed a pistol behind Simic’s ear. He demanded money. Simic handed over his wallet. It contained €430. He was forced to the floor and pistol whipped when he failed to react quickly enough, drawing blood. The other assailant handcuffed Duganhodzic to a barstool. He removed his purse. It contained about €1000. When Duganhodzic asked to have the handcuffs removed, he also was pistol whipped. Both of them sustained injuries in those assaults.
[7] Then, a series of armed robberies of gas stations occurred in the same vicinity in the summer of 2011. At each robbery, a man demanded money at gunpoint and the cashier handed over his cash receipts. Then the perpetrator escaped. The similarity of the descriptions of the perpetrators provided by witnesses to those events caused Hessian police to suspect serial offenders.
[8] The police interviewed Duganhodzic after the robbery of the pizzeria. He identified Mr. Jakovljevic from a photograph as one of the offenders who had robbed the pizzeria on October 22, 2010. That photograph was attached as an enclosure to the original German ROC. Duganhodzic also identified one Robert Rilovic (“Rilovic”) as the second offender. An analysis of DNA material located on a teacup at the pizzeria used by one of the offenders matched Rilovic’s DNA. Rilovic was interrogated by the police in connection with the robberies in late September, 2011. He acknowledged having committed several robberies, some alone, and others with accomplices. He identified Mr. Jakovljevic by his first name, Miroslav, and indicated he was also referred to as “Celo”. Celo worked in a garage and stayed in a rented room in Offenbach. Rilovic said he provided the car for the robberies, or drove him to the gas stations. Rilovic’s account of the Rewe supermarket robbery in Wiesbaden on August 11, 2011 matched the account provided by the cashier from that market.
[9] Rilovic was also able to provide evidence that Miroslav, or “Celo”, had a cell phone number that ended with the digits 120. Ironically, Mr. Jakovljevic had filed a theft charge with the police in March of 2011. At that time had left his phone number with them. It was 0157-83734120. The police also interviewed Ms. Edina Grund, who put Jakovljevic and Rilovic up in her apartment after they arrived together in Germany from Bosnia. She also provided photo identification of Mr. Jakovljevic, a person she had known since September of 2010, and that photograph was attached as enclosure 2 to the ROC. Enclosure three to the ROC contains further photographs of Mr. Jakovljevic. He was born January 12, 1982 in Sarajevo, in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
[10] The final evidentiary piece relating to Mr. Jakovljevic is the evidence compiled by the Hessian Criminal Police. It identifies that the telephone number associated to Mr. Jakovljevic was active very close to the scene of four of the robberies at or about the time that they were taking place.
Issues
[11] In this case, counsel for Mr. Jakovljevic raises four grounds of attack, challenges that are essentially procedural in nature and which he says must prevent me from granting the committal order sought.
[12] First, it is claimed that the Minister of Justice in Canada should not have issued the ATP in this case since the extradition request does not come directly from the German Minister of Justice but rather from a Public Prosecutor in Darmstadt, Hesse. Counsel says I cannot simply accept that Mr. Pehle’s certification in the ROC amounts to an extradition request by the German Federal Republic to Canada. Since the extradition request must come from an extradition partner, I should require that the request come from the German Minister of Justice. Moreover, it is claimed that it should be the Canadian Minister of Justice who issues the ATP, not a staff lawyer within the Department of Justice.
[13] Finally, counsel for Mr. Jakovljevic claims that I cannot be satisfied that he was properly arrested. Thus he claims that the Minister of Justice in Canada could not satisfy himself that the requirements of the Act were met, such as to issue the ATP, in the absence of an Interpol arrest warrant which he claims ought to have been present and the foundation for Mr. Jakovljevic’s arrest.
[14] I have commenced my analysis with a review of the framework within which I am required to consider the issues raised by the applicant. I have then answered the specific issues raised in challenge to the issuance of a committal order in this case.
Legislative Framework and Analysis
[15] It is well-established that extradition is meant to be a simple and expeditious process by which this country returns wanted fugitives to our partner nations. It is based on the comity of nations. Its purpose is to facilitate a trial on the merits for the alleged offender in the country where they have been charged and where there is a prima facie case for them to answer.[^1]
[16] The Ontario Court of Appeal has described extradition as a political process at its core, where primary responsibility rests with the executive branch of government.[^2] It consists of distinct phases, the first and the last of those being the sole prerogative and functional responsibility of the Minister of Justice.
[17] In the first stage, it is the Minister who decides whether to issue an ATP after receiving an extradition request from an extradition partner. In the last stage, if the person sought is committed for extradition, it is the Minister who decides whether to surrender that person to the extradition partner. If so, the person sought may make submissions to the Minister on that question, and the Minister’s conduct is reviewable by the Court of Appeal, and thereby subjected to Charter scrutiny. Only the middle step takes place before this court. That is this phase, where an extradition judge holds a hearing after an ATP has been issued in order to decide whether to commit the person sought for extradition.[^3]
[18] The jurisprudence emphasizes that the executive and the judiciary each perform an independent function from the other in this process.[^4] The Minister does not have the authority to alter this court’s decision whether a committal for extradition should be issued, and neither does this court have the authority to review the Minister’s conduct. The responsibility for the review function which occurs at the end of the process rests exclusively with provincial courts of appeal.[^5]
[19] In this case, since the ATP has been issued by the Minister, that necessarily means that the Minister has been satisfied under subsection 15(1) of the Act that the ROC evidence is extraditable conduct which justifies him in referring the matter to this court to conduct an extradition hearing. The ATP issued on January 29, 2013 and signed by Jacqueline Beckles, Counsel with the International Assistance Group, for the Minister of Justice of Canada authorizes the Attorney General to seek an order of committal from this court. That order is for the extradition of Mr. Jakovljevic to Germany for offences which correspond to robbery as defined in section 344 of the Code and conspiracy to commit robbery which correspond to sections 465 and 344 of the Code.
[20] As the extradition judge, I am required by section 24 of the Act to hold an extradition hearing, and to order the committal of Mr. Jakovljevic into custody to await surrender to Germany if I conclude that two tests are satisfied.[^6] First, there must be evidence admissible under the Act of conduct that, had it occurred in Canada, would justify committal for trial in Canada on the offence or offences set out in the ATP. Secondly, I must be satisfied that Mr. Jakovljevic is indeed the person sought by Germany in this case.
[21] The evidentiary requirements are described in sections 31 to 37 of the Act. There are several important features to the rules set out in those sections. First, a ROC certified under subsection 33(3) is to be admitted as evidence for the purposes of the extradition hearing even if it would not otherwise be admissible under Canadian law. That is important, because it emphasizes the reliance placed by Parliament on the veracity of the certification provided by the extradition partner. That certification confirms that the evidence summarized or contained in the ROC or any supplemental ROC's is sufficient under the law of the extradition partner, in this case the Federal Republic of Germany, to justify prosecution of the person sought, or that it was gathered in accordance with German law.
[22] In this case, the ROC and the Supplemental ROC are certified by one Michael Pehle. He describes himself as a public prosecutor at the Public Prosecutors Office in Darmstadt in the German Land of Hesse of the Federal Republic of Germany. He confirms that the evidence described in the documentation contained within the ROC is available for trial and that it is sufficient to support prosecution according to the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany. He also confirms that the evidence and documentation contained in the supplemental ROC is available for trial and was gathered in accordance with the laws of Germany. The Act ensures the reliability of the certification in the ROC by stipulating that it must be made by "a judicial or prosecuting authority of the extradition partner"[^7], a point emphasized in U.S.A. v. Ferras.[^8]
[23] This then brings me to the test for committal. This is the function that this court is meant to serve in the course of an extradition hearing like this. It is a modest role. It is intended to (i) establish that the evidence put forward by the extradition partner establishes a prima facie case that the crimes alleged have been committed[^9], and (ii) establish that the person before the court, in this case Mr. Jakovljevic, is indeed the person sought by the extradition partner.
[24] In Ferras, above, at paragraph 46, McLachlan C.J.C. described the standard as requiring that I assess whether the admissible evidence “shows the justice or rightness” of committing the person for extradition. I do not need to be satisfied that Mr. Jakovljevic is guilty of the alleged crimes – that determination remains the prerogative of the courts of Germany in accordance with German law – but I must be satisfied that sufficiently cogent evidence has been presented in the ROC that the case could go to trial in Canada. The Supreme Court allows that this may require the court to engage in limited weighing of the evidence, not to determine guilt, but whether it is sufficient for committal.
[25] The concern, as Doherty J.A. notes in U.S.A. v. Anderson[^10], is with evidence that is so defective or unreliable as to warrant disregarding it due to inherent problems or those that undermine the credibility or reliability of the source of the evidence, or a combination of those factors. Only in those circumstances may an extradition judge have the discretion to give no weight to unreliable evidence under section 29 of the Act. However, the mere fact that evidence may have emanated from a co-conspirator or other “less than pristine sources” and suffer consequential weakness cannot permit it to be discounted totally in assessing whether the requesting state has met the test for extradition.[^11]
[26] Thus, if I am satisfied that there is some evidence that is available for trial and not manifestly unreliable on all of the essential elements of the parallel Canadian offences, upon which a properly instructed jury could convict, then the test for committal will have been satisfied.
[27] It is true that some of the evidence proffered by Germany against Mr. Jakovljevic in this case does come from Mr. Rilovic. As an alleged co-conspirator, he may turn out to be an unreliable or questionable source once the matter gets to trial, but the reliability of his identification of this individual as his sometime partner in crime is not to be discarded just because of that. Regardless of whether the case may be weak or whether the Canadian court thinks the prospect of conviction is unlikely, that will not justify refusing to grant the order of committal if the test in Ferras is met. That test is that there is evidence that was both available for trial and of sufficient reliability to warrant its reception into the "some evidence" basket.[^12]
[28] In any event, apart from many imputed weakness of the co-conspirator evidence that emanates from Rilovic, there is other evidence of direct identification of the person sought in this case, Mr. Jakovljevic, by one of the two victims of the pizzeria robbery. Presumably he has the scars from the pistol whipping he allegedly sustained to remind him of the facial features he identified of the person who committed the assault on him. He identified that person as Mr. Jakovljevic. As well, beyond Rilovic there is the identification of Ms. Grund, and the telephone usage evidence.
[29] In this case, I would have resolved those issues affirmatively in favour of the Federal Republic of Germany, and concluded that there was adequate evidence of sufficient reliability to meet the test set out in section 29 of the Act, even if that proposition had been challenged. However, that question does not raise a problem or concern. It is not contentious in the context of this extradition hearing. The reason is that counsel for the person sought, Mr. Jakovljevic, concedes, correctly in my view, that there is adequate evidence of sufficient reliability upon which a properly instructed Canadian jury could convict. As such he concedes that the evidentiary burden that must be met by the Attorney General to obtain an order for committal is satisfied.
[30] Finally, as for satisfying myself that this is indeed Mr. Jakovljevic, I am visually satisfied, as I am permitted to be, from the photographic exhibits in the ROC and the obvious fact that they are the same person as the person sought who was sitting in front of me, that he is indeed the Miroslav Jakovljevic sought for extradition by the Federal Republic of Germany.[^13]
[31] In light of this review of the legislative framework and my views on the compliance of the Federal Republic of Germany with those extradition requirements in this case based on the contents of its ROC and its Supplemental ROC, it would seem inevitable that an order of committal for extradition ought to issue unless there is substance to claims of procedural irregularity. It remains to determine whether any of those procedural grounds advanced by counsel for Mr. Jakovljevic has merit.
[32] The first and second grounds of complaint relate to the ATP and the validity of the Ministerial action that results in this committal hearing being conducted before this court. The first ground is that the Minister of Justice in Canada should not have issued the ATP in this case since the extradition request does not come directly from the German Minister of Justice, but rather from a Public Prosecutor in Darmstadt, Hesse. Counsel says I cannot simply accept that Mr. Pehle’s certification in the ROC amounts to an extradition request by the German Federal Republic to Canada.
[33] On this ground, paragraph 33(3)(a) of the Act stipulates that the certification contained in the record of the case must come from "a judicial or prosecuting authority of the extradition partner." Obviously the Minister of Justice for the Federal Republic of Germany would qualify as a judicial or prosecuting authority of that country, but he or she need not be involved in every extradition request that is made. This issue was considered by the British Columbia Supreme Court in USA v. Acosta, a February 7, 2012 unreported decision of Mr. Justice Silverman, a copy of which was provided to this court by counsel for the Attorney General.
[34] In that case, similar to this case, the signature of the certifying person was not that of the Attorney General of the United States. The person who certified the ROC in that case against the person sought, Acosta, was one “Sharon L. Hedlund, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Spokane County, State of Washington, United States.” The argument was made there by the person sought, as it is made here by counsel for Mr. Jakovljevic, that the extradition partner in that case is the United States, not the State of Washington. Thus, in that case, counsel for the person sought contended that the requirements of ss. 33(3)(a) of the Act had not been complied with because the certification on the ROC was expressly required to be by "a judicial or prosecuting authority of the extradition partner," not some other official.
[35] Justice Silverman had little difficulty rejecting this line of argument. First, he noted that the prosecutor put forward as a signatory of the certification, by the very fact that they are put forward for that purpose, are being advanced by the other extradition partner as an appropriate person to certify on behalf of them. In that case, Justice Silverman had no problem taking judicial notice of the fact that the State of Washington was one of the United States and as such, the prosecuting attorney of the State of Washington put forward as a person qualified to certify a ROC under the Extradition Act should be accepted judicially as evidence of the person is qualified to do so, and is a "judicial or prosecuting authority of the extradition partner." He also noted that nowhere in the United States-Canada Extradition Treaty, which must be read together with the Act, was there any stipulation that only a prosecutor who operates in the federal system in the United States could provide the requisite certification as distinct from one prosecuting crimes within the state system.
[36] Reference was also made to two decisions which support this proposition, those of the B.C. Supreme Court in U.S.A. v. Danielson[^14] and the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench in Czech Republic v. Moravek.[^15] In both cases, the court took judicial notice of the fact that a state level signing prosecutor was “a prosecuting authority” of the extradition partner within the meaning of section 33, commenting that the court not only can, but should take that judicial notice.
[37] The second ground of complaint of counsel for Mr. Jakovljevic is that he claims that it should be the Canadian Minister of Justice who issues the ATP, not a staff lawyer within the Department of Justice. This concern can be addressed and despatched quickly. The Federal Court of Appeal dealt with the question succinctly at paragraph 24 of Froom v. Canada (Minister of Justice)[^16], where Justice Sharlow commented parenthetically on the question whether, as a matter of law, the Minister’s discretion to issue an authority to proceed can be delegated. In that case, the lower court judge had concluded that it was open to the Minister to delegate his authority. The Court of Appeal agreed with that conclusion.
[38] However, Froom is also important in the context of these procedural complaints, because it again reiterates that it does not lie within the jurisdiction of the extradition judge to conduct a judicial review of the ATP or to give a fresh consideration to whether the Minister correctly concluded here that the statutory requirements to this ATP had been met. Given the primacy of Ministerial action in the extradition process, the Act presumes that the request conforms with the applicable treaty once the Minister is satisfied that the request complies with the Act and has issued an ATP.[^17]
[39] In fairness to counsel for Mr. Jakovljevic, the presumption that the request conforms to the Canada-Germany Extradition Treaty and that the Minister has correctly satisfied himself that the requirements of the Act and Treaty have been met, is only that, a presumption. But as Sharlow J.A. noted at paragraph 19 of Froom, it is a presumption whose displacement requires the presence of a significant impropriety on the part of the Minister in the process of issuing the ATP. In circumstances where such it impropriety may be found, however, the extradition judge does have the jurisdiction to provide an adequate remedy. She continued as follows:
On the contrary, it is my view that an extradition judge who is presented with evidence that the decision of the Minister to issue an authority to proceed was made arbitrarily or in bad faith, or was motivated by improper motives or irrelevant considerations, has the requisite jurisdiction to grant an appropriate remedy under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms…or under the inherent jurisdiction of the superior courts to control their own process and prevent its abuse…[authorities and citations omitted]
[40] In this case, however, no such arbitrary conduct or bad faith is alleged on the part of the Minister, nor is there any evidence that could support such allegations. As such, as I have emphasized above, it is not my jurisdiction to review the Minister’s conduct in issuing the ATP. Apart from other functions expressly assigned by statute, my sole responsibility is to hold a hearing to determine whether the evidence presented in the ROC would support a committal on the Canadian equivalent of the offences described in the ATP.[^18] Apart from this limited judicial role, all remaining functions are the prerogative of the Minister.[^19] It is the Minister alone who decides whether to issue the ATP and it is the Minister alone who decides whether the person ought to be surrendered to the other state. As Watt J. stated bluntly in Schreiber, above, "there is nothing in the Act or Treaty that entitles the extradition hearing judge to review the Minister’s decision or decide, de novo as it were, whether the fugitive is a person sought for prosecution. I lack the authority to make any such order."
[41] Finally, there is the complaint made by counsel for Mr. Jakovljevic that I cannot be satisfied that he was properly arrested. He claims that the Minister of Justice could not satisfy himself that the requirements of the Act were met, such as to issue the ATP, in the absence of an Interpol arrest warrant which he claims ought to have been present and the foundation for Mr. Jakovljevic’s arrest. There are two quick answers to this claim. The first, as I have just emphasized, is that it does not lie within my jurisdiction as extradition judge to do a dissection of the Minister’s conduct in issuing the ATP. If there are complaints with that process, or allegations of error that do not rise to the level of impropriety contemplated by Sharlow J.A. in Froom, above, then as contemplated by the Act, it is at the courts of appeal of the provinces where judicial review of ministerial conduct is intended to be available and take place, not here. The second quick answer to this claim is that I regard it as an impermissible collateral attack made without foundation on the issuance of the provisional warrant of arrest by Madam Justice Himel. Beyond that observation, I do not intend to dignify the complaint.
Disposition
[42] I have found no foundation whatsoever for any of these lines of attack, either legally or factually. In attacking this extradition on these grounds, counsel for the person sought, Mr. Jakovljevic, fails to acknowledge that the Ministerial action that precedes the issuance of the ATP and this extradition hearing is not subject to judicial review by this court in the absence of evidence of manifest impropriety or failure to adhere to the Act’s requirements. Moreover, and of overriding significance, in asking this court to make inquiry into these matters I am being invited to make determinations that plainly exceed the extent of my jurisdiction on this extradition hearing, as established in numerous decisions of appellate courts across Canada, not to mention the Supreme Court of Canada. The law could not be clearer. Judicial review of the Minister’s conduct lies only with the Court of Appeal and only after this court has issued an order for committal for extradition to the requesting state and the Minister has acted upon that order and determined to surrender the person sought to that state.
[43] Given that conclusion, and since counsel for the person sought, as noted, does not dispute that the evidence is sufficient to meet the test for extradition, I am satisfied that the Attorney General has met the requisite statutory tests so an order of committal shall issue for the extradition of Mr. Jakovljevic to the Federal Republic of Germany.
Michael G. Quigley J.
Released: April 12, 2013
COURT FILE NO.: CR129000018300
DATE: 20130412
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA OF BEHALF OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
Applicant
– and –
MIROSLAV JAKOVLJEVIC
Respondent/Person Sought
REASONS FOR ruling RE: extradition request
Michael G. Quigley J.
Released: April 12, 2013
[^1]: See U.S.A. v. Cotroni, 1989 106 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R.1469, at para. 27-28.
[^2]: U.S.A. v. McAmmond (2005), 2005 20 (ON CA), 192 C.C.C. (3d) 149 (Ont.C.A.). See also U.S.A. v. Kwok, 2001 SCC 18, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 532 at paras. 4 and 27; U.S.A. v. McVey, 1992 48 (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 475 at para. 10.
[^3]: Extradition Act, ss. 24 and 29.
[^4]: Germany v. Schreiber, [2000] O.J. No. 2618 (S.C.J.).
[^5]: Ibid, at para.72.
[^6]: Extradition Act, ss. 29(1).
[^7]: Extradition Act, ss. 33(3)(a).
[^8]: U.S.A. v. Ferras, 2006 SCC 33, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 77.
[^9]: See Republic of Argentina v. Mellino, 1987 49 (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R.536, at para.29; see also U.S.A. v. Dynar, 1997 359 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R.462 at para.120; and McVey, above, at para.65.
[^10]: 2007 ONCA 84, [2007] O.J. No. 449 (O.C.A.).
[^11]: Ibid., at para. 33.
[^12]: See U.S.A. v. Tomlinson, 2007 ONCA 42, [2007] O.J. No. 246 (O.C.A.) at paras. 47-48.
[^13]: Extradition Act, s. 37.
[^14]: 2002 BCSC 1854.
[^15]: [2004] M.J. No. 69.
[^16]: 2004 FCA 352, [2005] 2 F.C.R. 195.
[^17]: Extradition Act, ss. 3, 15.
[^18]: Ibid., ss. 24 and 29.
[^19]: See Kwok, above, at paragraph 31.