Divito v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al., (2011) 413 N.R. 134 (FCA)

• Judge: Nadon, Trudel and Mainville, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: October 14, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2011), 413 N.R. 134 (FCA);2011 FCA 39

Divito v. Can. (2011), 413 N.R. 134 (FCA)

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: [2011] N.R. TBEd. FE.032

Pierino Divito (appellant) v. Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondent) and Canadian Civil Liberties Association (intervenor)

(A-425-09; 2011 FCA 39; 2011 CAF 39)

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

Federal Court of Appeal

Nadon, Trudel and Mainville, JJ.A.

February 3, 2011.

Summary:

After spending ten years in prison in Canada, Divito was extradited to the United States in June 2005, where a Florida court sentenced him to 90 months in prison. He sought a transfer to Canada under the International Transfer of Offenders Act, 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 International Transfer of Offenders Act. 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. Divito appealed. 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.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Nadon, J.A. (Trudel, J.A., concurring), held that the International Transfer of Offenders Act 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. Mainville, J.A., opined that the impugned provisions constituted prima facie infringements of s. 6(1), but the infringement was justified under s. 1.

Civil Rights - Topic 506

Mobility rights - General - Prisoner transfers - After spending 10 years in prison in Canada, DiVito was extradited to the United States where a Florida court sentenced him to 90 months in prison - He sought a transfer to Canada under the International Transfer of Offenders Act (ITOA), but the responsible Minister denied his request for a transfer - 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 under s. 6(1) of the Charter - The Federal Court of Appeal 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 - The court held that what Divito was actually seeking was a constitutional right to serve his foreign prison sentence in Canada, where no such right existed.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 506 ].

Prisons - Topic 1026

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

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Gauvin (E.) et al. (1997), 187 N.B.R.(2d) 262; 478 A.P.R. 262 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Rumbaut (C.M.H.) (1998), 200 N.B.R.(2d) 88; 512 A.P.R. 88; 1998 CanLII 9816 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 7].

Kozarov v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2008] 2 F.C.R. 377; 333 F.T.R. 27; 2007 FC 866, refd to. [paras. 11, 76].

Getkate v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2009] 3 F.C.R. 26; 333 F.T.R. 121; 2008 FC 965, refd to. [paras. 12, 80].

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. 15, 79].

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. 15].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 27].

Co-operative Committee on Japanese Canadians v. Canada (Attorney General), [1947] A.C. 87 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

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. [para. 32].

Kamel v. Canada (Attorney General), [2009] 4 F.C.R. 449; 388 N.R. 4; 2009 FCA 21, leave to appeal refused (2009), 400 N.R. 389 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 32].

Canada (Minister of Justice) v. Fischbacher, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 170; 394 N.R. 139; 255 O.A.C. 288; 2009 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 47].

Nemeth v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (2010), 408 N.R. 198; 2010 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 47].

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. 49].

Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3; 281 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 52].

Curtis v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2010), 373 N.R. 267; 2010 FC 943, refd to. [para. 80].

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) et al. (2004), 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. D.B. (2008), 374 N.R. 221; 237 O.A.C. 110; 2008 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Hape (L.R.) (2007), 363 N.R. 1; 227 O.A.C. 191; 2007 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 83].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 3]; sect. 6(1) [para. 1].

International Transfer of Offenders Act, S.C. 2004, c. 21, sect. 8(1), sect. 10(1)(a), sect. 10(2)(a) [para. 24].

Counsel:

Marie-Hélène Giroux and Clément Monterosso, for the appellant;

Éric Lafrenière and Marc Ribeiro, for the respondent;

Lorne Waldman, for the intervenor.

Solicitors of Record:

Monterosso Giroux s.e.n.c., Montréal, Québec, for the appellant;

Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent;

Waldman and Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor.

This appeal was heard in Montreal, Quebec, on October 14, 2010, by Nadon, Trudel and Mainville, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. Judgment of the court was delivered in Ottawa, Ontario, on February 3, 2011, when the following opinions were filed:

Mainville, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 71;

Nadon, J.A. (Trudel, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 72 to 89.