Coffey v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2005 FC 554

• Judge: O'Keefe, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 22, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2005 FC 554;(2005), 273 F.T.R. 92 (FC)

Coffey v. Can. (2005), 273 F.T.R. 92 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.003

David B. Coffey (applicant) v. The Minister of Justice (respondent)

(T-1875-04; 2005 FC 554)

Indexed As: Coffey v. Canada (Minister of Justice)

Federal Court

O'Keefe, J.

April 22, 2005.

Summary:

The Minister of Justice issued an authority to proceed in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench for an order of committal to surrender the applicant to the United States. The applicant applied for judicial review. The Minister moved for an order striking out the application.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court, in a decision reported at 264 F.T.R. 126, dismissed the motion. The Minister moved to appeal.

The Federal Court allowed the motion and struck out the application for judicial review.

Administrative Law - Topic 3302

Judicial review - General - Bars - Alternate remedy - [See Extradition - Topic 2914 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3342

Judicial review - General - Practice - Limitation period - The Minister of Justice issued an authority to proceed in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench for an order of committal to surrender the applicant to the United States - The applicant applied for judicial review - The Minister moved for an order striking out the application - The Minister argued that the application was time barred because it was not filed within the 30 day time limit provided by s. 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act - A Prothonotary dismissed the motion - The time limit did not apply to an administrative proceeding or an administrative act - Accordingly, there was an arguable issue as to whether the time bar in the Act applied to an authority to proceed - Such a serious and substantial issue could not be determined on a motion to strike - The Federal Court affirmed the Prothonotary's decision on this issue - See paragraphs 15 to 21.

Administrative Law - Topic 3355

Judicial review - General - Practice - Application - Setting aside - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3342 , Extradition - Topic 2648 and Extradition - Topic 2914 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 7096

Judicial review - Bars - Discretionary bars - Existence of convenient or adequate alternative remedy - [See Extradition - Topic 2914 ].

Courts - Topic 4071.3

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Practice - Judicial review applications - Time for - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3342 ].

Extradition - Topic 2648

Evidence and procedure before examining judge - Evidence - General - Disclosure - The Minister of Justice issued an authority to proceed in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench for an order of committal to surrender the applicant to the United States - The applicant applied for judicial review - The Minister moved for an order striking out the application - The Minister argued that the application was an abuse of process because the applicant was attempting to obtain documents to which he was not entitled in the extradition process - A Prothonotary dismissed the motion - While accepting that extradition proceedings did not concern themselves with issues of guilt or innocence and thus there was a limited right of disclosure, the Prothonotary accepted the applicant's argument that the Minister's actions were reviewable - Disclosure could be relevant where the respondent did not have before him evidence supporting extradition - The Federal Court affirmed the Prothonotary's decision on this issue - See paragraphs 22 to 23.

Extradition - Topic 2914

Provisional arrest and detention - Warrant of committal - General - Authority to proceed - The Minister of Justice issued an authority to proceed in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench for an order of committal to surrender the applicant to the United States - The applicant applied for judicial review - The Minister moved for an order striking out the application - The Minister argued that the Federal Court had no jurisdiction to deal with an authority to proceed which was issued to a Manitoba Court - Therefore, the court had the discretion to decline judicial review where there was an adequate alternative remedy (the extradition judge in the Manitoba court) - A Prothonotary dismissed the motion - Given the restrictive role of extradition judges, a realistic alternative remedy did not necessarily exist and the Federal Court was an appropriate venue - The Federal Court allowed an appeal - The grounds cited in the notice of application did not disclose arguments that were outside of the jurisdiction of the extradition judge - Moreover, in addition to any inherent jurisdiction in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, the Extradition Act provided the applicant with different remedies - See paragraphs 24 to 27.

Extradition - Topic 3944

Practice - Judicial review - Jurisdiction - [See Extradition - Topic 2914 ].

Cases Noticed:

Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425; 149 N.R. 273 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Bull (David) Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc. et al., [1995] 1 F.C. 588; 176 N.R. 48 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Pharmacia Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) - see Bull (David) Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc. et al.

Friedman & Friedman Inc. et al. v. Mayrand et al. (2001), 211 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

White (Peter G.) Management Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) et al. (2004), 251 F.T.R. 235; 2004 FC 597, refd to. [para. 16].

Froom v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (2003), 242 F.T.R. 1; 2003 FC 1299, refd to. [para. 17].

Dutt v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 177 F.T.R. 304 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 20].

United States of America v. Kwok, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 532; 267 N.R. 310; 145 O.A.C. 36; 2001 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 23].

Froom v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (2004), 327 N.R. 304; 2004 FCA 352, appld. [para. 24].

Froom v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (2002), 225 F.T.R. 173; 2002 FCT 1278, refd to. [para. 24].

Counsel:

David H. Davis, for the applicant;

Sharlene Telles-Langdon, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Davis & Associates Law Office, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the applicant;

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This motion was dealt with in writing, without the appearances of parties, by O'Keefe, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on April 22, 2005.