Coffey v. Canada (Minister of Justice), (2004) 264 F.T.R. 126 (FC)

• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 03, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2004), 264 F.T.R. 126 (FC);2004 FC 1694

Coffey v. Can. (2004), 264 F.T.R. 126 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] F.T.R. TBEd. DE.032

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

(T-1875-04; 2004 FC 1694)

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

Federal Court

Hargrave, Prothonotary

December 3, 2004.

Summary:

The respondent 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 respondent moved for an order striking out the application.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court dismissed the motion.

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 respondent 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 respondent moved for an order striking out the application - The respondent 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 of the Federal Court 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 - See paragraphs 8 to 16.

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 respondent 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 respondent moved for an order striking out the application - The respondent 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 of the Federal Court dismissed the motion - While accepting that extradition proceedings did not concern themselves with issue of guilt or innocence and thus there was a limited right of disclosure, the Prothonotary accepted the applicant's argument that the respondent's actions were reviewable - Disclosure could be relevant where the respondent did not have before him evidence supporting extradition - See paragraphs 24 to 26.

Extradition - Topic 2914

Provisional arrest and detention - Warrant of committal - General - Authority to proceed - The respondent 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 respondent moved for an order striking out the application - The respondent 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 of the Federal Court 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 - See paragraphs 17 to 21.

Extradition - Topic 3944

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

Cases Noticed:

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

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

Vancouver Island Peace Society et al. v. Canada (Minister of National Defence) et al. (1993), 64 F.T.R. 127 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Karlsson v. Minister of National Revenue (1995), 97 F.T.R. 75 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 6].

Sterritt v. Canada (1995), 98 F.T.R. 68 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 6].

Sembawang Reefer Lines (Bahamas) Ltd. v. Ship Lina Erre et al. (1990), 114 N.R. 270 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Watt v. Canada, [1998] N.R. Uned. 7 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Morneault v. Canada (Attorney General) (2000), 256 N.R. 85 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Friedman & Friedman Inc. et al. v. Mayrand et al. (2001), 211 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 13].

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. 14].

Larny Holdings Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Health), [2003] 1 F.C. 541; 222 F.T.R. 29 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Jawanda v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] F.T.R. Uned. 392; 14 Imm. L.R.(3d) 151 (T.D. Protho.), refd to. [para. 15].

Froom v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (2004), 327 N.R. 304; 2004 FCA 352, refd to. [para. 17].

United States of America v. McVey, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 475; 144 N.R. 81; 16 B.C.A.C. 241; 28 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 18].

Argentina (Republic) v. Mellino, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 536; 76 N.R. 51; 80 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 18].

United States of America v. Lépine, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 286; 163 N.R. 1; 69 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 19].

United States of America et al. v. Dynar, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 462; 213 N.R. 321; 101 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 25].

United States of America v. Kwok, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 532; 267 N.R. 310; 145 O.A.C. 36, refd to. [para. 25].

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;

Morris A. Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent.

This motion was dealt with in writing without the appearances of parties by Hargrave, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment on December 3, 2004.