Divito v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al.

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ.
• Citation: (2013), 448 N.R. 71 (SCC),2013 SCC 47,[2013] 3 SCR 157
• Date: 18 February 2013

Divito v. Can. (2013), 448 N.R. 71 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2013] N.R. TBEd. SE.006

Pierino Divito (appellant) v. Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondent) and Canadian Civil Liberties Association, David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (interveners)

(34128; 2013 SCC 47; 2013 CSC 47)

Indexed As: Divito v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ.

September 19, 2013.

Summary:

Divito was extradited to the United States where he pleaded guilty to serious drug offences and was sentenced to 7.5 years in prison. He applied for a transfer to Canada under the International Transfer of Offenders Act (ITOA), but the responsible Minister denied his request for a transfer. Divito applied for judicial review, inter alia, challenging the constitutional validity of ss. 8(1), 10(1)(a) and 10(2)(a) of the ITOA. Divito claimed that those provisions violated the right to enter and remain in Canada guaranteed to every citizen under s. 6(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 597, dismissed the application, holding that the impugned provisions were constitutionally valid and applicable. The court held that Divito's right under s. 6(1) was not infringed by the impugned provisions and that, in any event, those provisions constituted a reasonable limit to his right to enter Canada under s. 1 of the Charter. Divito appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported (2011), 413 N.R. 134, dismissed the appeal. The majority held that the ITOA did not violate Divito's right to enter Canada under s. 6(1), and in any event, any infringement was justified under s. 1 of the Charter. Divito appealed again.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The majority rejected Divito's view that the mobility rights guaranteed by s. 6(1) of the Charter gave a Canadian citizen in his circumstances (i.e., once the foreign jurisdiction had consented to the transfer) an automatic right to serve a sentence in Canada. The majority held that the impugned provisions of the ITOA did not infringe s. 6(1) of the Charter. Because of this finding the majority found it unnecessary to deal with the s. 1 issue.

Civil Rights - Topic 505

Mobility rights - General - Right to enter Canada or a province - Section 6(1) of the Charter provided that every citizen of Canada had the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the scope of the s. 6(1) right - See paragraphs 19 to 52 and 55.

Civil Rights - Topic 506

Mobility rights - General - Prisoner transfers - Divito was extradited to the United States where he pleaded guilty to serious drug offences and was sentenced to 7.5 years in prison. - He sought a transfer to Canada under the International Transfer of Offenders Act (ITOA), but the responsible Minister denied his request - Divito challenged the constitutional validity of ss. 8(1), 10(1)(a) and 10(2)(a) of the ITOA - Divito claimed that those provisions violated the right to enter and remain in Canada guaranteed to every citizen (Charter, s. 6(1)) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the impugned provisions did not infringe s. 6(1) - Because of this finding, the court found it unnecessary to deal with s. 1 of the Charter - The court rejected Divito's view that the mobility rights guaranteed by s. 6(1) of the Charter gave a Canadian citizen whose transfer had been consented to by the foreign jurisdiction an automatic right to serve a sentence in Canada - The court stated that the mobility rights in s. 6(1) should be construed generously, not literally, and absent a literal interpretation, the court was unable to see how s. 6(1) was breached in the circumstances of this case.

Prisons - Topic 1026

Administration - Powers re prisoners - Transfers (incl. international transfers) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 506 ].

Cases Noticed:

Divito v. Canada (Ministre de la Justice), 2004 CanLII 39111 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

États-Unis d'Amérique v. Divito (2004), 194 C.C.C.(3d) 148 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Gauvin (E.) et al. (1997), 187 N.B.R.(2d) 262; 478 A.P.R. 262 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Rumbaut (C.M.H.), [1998] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 61 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [paras. 19, 55].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 19, 55].

Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 19].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183, refd to. [para. 22].

United States of America v. Burns and Rafay, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283; 265 N.R. 212; 148 B.C.A.C. 1; 243 W.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 22].

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76; 315 N.R. 201; 183 O.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Hape (L.R.), [2007] 2 S.C.R. 292; 363 N.R. 1; 227 O.A.C. 191; 2007 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 22].

Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 22].

Health Services and Support - Facilities Subsector Bargaining Association et al. v. British Columbia, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 391; 363 N.R. 226; 242 B.C.A.C. 1; 400 W.A.C. 1; 2007 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 23].

Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) et al., [2002] 3 S.C.R. 519; 294 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 68, refd to. [para. 28].

United States of America v. Cotroni; United States of America v. El Zein, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469; 96 N.R. 321; 23 Q.A.C. 182, refd to. [paras. 29, 55].

PHS Community Services Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 134; 421 N.R. 1; 310 B.C.A.C. 1; 526 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 49].

Lake v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 761; 373 N.R. 339; 236 O.A.C. 371; 2008 SCC 23, refd to. [paras. 49, 85].

United States of America et al. v. Nadarajah, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 609; 437 N.R. 107; 301 O.A.C. 264; 2012 SCC 70, refd to. [paras. 49, 56].

Sriskandarajah v. United States of America - see United States of America et al. v. Nadarajah.

Doré v. Barreau du Québec, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 395; 428 N.R. 146; 2012 SCC 12, refd to. [paras. 49, 86].

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. McNeil (L.), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 66; 383 N.R. 1; 246 O.A.C. 154; 2009 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 51].

Kamel v. Canada (Attorney General), [2009] 4 F.C.R. 449; 388 N.R. 4; 2009 FCA 21, affing. [2008] 1 F.C.R. 59; 324 F.T.R. 250; 2008 FC 338, refd to. [para. 61].

Abdelrazik v. Canada (Minister of Foreign Affairs) et al., [2010] 1 F.C.R. 267; 346 F.T.R. 186; 2009 FC 580, refd to. [para. 62].

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 68].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 68].

McKay v. R., [1965] S.C.R. 798, refd to. [para. 75].

M & D Farm Ltd. et al. v. Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corp., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 961; 245 N.R. 165; 138 Man.R.(2d) 161; 202 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

Statutes Noticed:

Canada-United States Treaty on the Execution of Penal Sentences, Can. T.S. 1978, No. 12, generally [para. 31]; art. II [para. 32]; art. III [para. 34]; art. IV [para. 33].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 68]; sect. 6(1) [para. 16]; sect. 32 [para. 65].

International Transfer of Offenders Act, S.C. 2004, c. 21, sect. 3, sect. 8(1), sect. 10(1), sect. 10(1)(a), sect. 10(2), sect. 10(2)(a) [para. 37].

United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Can. T.S. 1976, No. 47, art. 12 [para. 25].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Arendt, Hannah, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1967), p. 296 [para. 21].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (5th Ed. 2007) (2011 Looseleaf Update Release), vol. 2, pp. 37-41 [para. 60]; 38-17, 38-18 [para. 68].

Kesby, Alison, The Right to Have Rights: Citizenship, Humanity and International Law (2012), p. 5 [para. 21].

Laskin, John B., Mobility Rights Under the Charter (1982), 4 S.C.L.R. 89, p. 89 [para. 24].

Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes (11th Ed. 1962), pp. 58, 59 [para. 75].

Plachta, Michal, Transfer of Prisoners under International Instruments and Domestic Legislation (1993), pp. 134 to 149 [para. 40].

Royce, Sylvia, International Prisoner Transfer (2009), 21 Federal Sentencing Report 186, p. 186 [para. 42].

Sharpe, Robert J., and Roach, Kent, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (4th Ed. 2009), p. 212 [para. 24].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), pp. 284 to 287 [para. 75].

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Handbook on the International Transfer of Sentenced Persons (2012), pp. 14, 17 [para. 40]; 9 to 15 [para. 42].

Counsel:

Clemente Monterosso and Laurent Carignan, for the appellant;

Ginette Gobeil and Claude Joyal, for the respondent;

Lorne Waldman, Clarisa Waldman and Tamara Morgenthau, for the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Audrey Macklin and Cheryl Milne, for the intervener, the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights;

Gib van Ert, Michael Sobkin and Heather E. Cochran, for the intervener, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

Solicitors of Record:

Monterosso Giroux, Outremont, Quebec, for the appellant;

Attorney General of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent;

Waldman & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights;

Hunter Litigation Chambers Law Corporation, Vancouver, British Columbia; Michael Sobkin, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

This appeal was heard on February 18, 2013, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Lebel, Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered on September 19, 2013, and the following opinions were filed:

Abella, J. (Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 52;

LeBel and Fish, JJ. (McLachlin, C.J.C, concurring) - see paragraphs 53 to 88.