Canada (Attorney General) v. Bennett, 2014 BCCA 159

• Judge: Frankel, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: April 14, 2014
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2014 BCCA 159;(2014), 354 B.C.A.C. 140 (CA)

Can. (A.G.) v. Bennett (2014), 354 B.C.A.C. 140 (CA);

    605 W.A.C. 140

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AP.046

Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States of America (respondent) v. John Bennett (applicant)

John Bennett (applicant) v. Minister of Justice (respondent)

(CA039698; 2014 BCCA 159)

Indexed As: Canada (Attorney General) v. Bennett

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Frankel, J.A.

April 17, 2014.

Summary:

The United States of America sought the extradition of Bennett to face charges equivalent to the Canadian offences of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud. The offences arose from Bennett's alleged involvement in a kick-back and bid-rigging scheme. Bennett claimed that his s. 7 Charter rights were violated and that there had been an abuse of process by the United States. He brought an application asking the extradition judge to hold a voir dire.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2011] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1746, dismissed the application. Bennett then applied pursuant to ss. 29 and 32 of the Extradition Act to adduce evidence that he submitted was relevant to the tests for committal under the provisions of the Act.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2011] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1521, dismissed the application.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 524, ordered Bennett's committal. In August 2012, the Minister of Justice issued an order of surrender. Bennett appealed the order for committal, arguing that the extradition judge erred by refusing to hold a voir dire and by refusing his application to lead evidence at the committal hearing. Bennett simultaneously applied for judicial review of the Minister's order for surrender, arguing that the Minister failed to properly consider whether it would be unjust or oppressive to surrender him.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 353 B.C.A.C. 311; 603 W.A.C. 311, dismissed both the appeal and the application. Bennett applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. He then applied for bail pending the determination of his leave application.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Frankel, J.A., granted the application.

Extradition - Topic 2961

Provisional arrest and detention - Bail or interim release - General (incl. when appropriate) - See paragraphs 1 to 22.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Barling (1993), 24 M.V.R.(4th) 122 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. B.S.B. (2008), 263 B.C.A.C. 51; 443 W.A.C. 51; 2008 BCCA 483, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Stevovic (D.) et al. (2011), 312 B.C.A.C. 305; 531 W.A.C. 305; 2011 BCCA 460, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Hanna (K.D.) (1992), 3 B.C.A.C. 57; 7 W.A.C. 57 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Stewart (M.W.) (2001), 163 B.C.A.C. 44; 267 W.A.C. 44; 2001 BCCA 749, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Schiel (A.K.), [2011] B.C.A.C. Uned. 58; 2011 BCCA 160, refd to. [para. 14].

United States of America et al. v. Wakeling (2013), 335 B.C.A.C. 15; 573 W.A.C. 15; 2013 BCCA 166, refd to. [para. 15].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Aziz (2013), 342 B.C.A.C. 305; 585 W.A.C. 305; 303 C.C.C.(3d) 89; 2013 BCCA 414, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Beaulac (J.V.) (1997), 98 B.C.A.C. 271; 161 W.A.C. 271; 120 C.C.C.(3d) 16 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Des Champs v. Conseil des écoles séparées catholiques de langue française de Prescott-Russell et al., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 281; 245 N.R. 201; 125 O.A.C. 279, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. G.L.M. (1999), 128 B.C.A.C. 102; 208 W.A.C. 102; 138 C.C.C.(3d) 383; 1999 BCCA 467, refd to. [para. 18].

Counsel:

G.P. DelBigio, Q.C., for the applicant;

S.M. Repas, for the respondents.

This application was heard in Chambers at Vancouver, B.C., on April 14, 2014, before Frankel, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, who delivered the following oral judgment on April 17, 2014.