United States of America v. Barrientos, (1995) 178 A.R. 1 (CA)

• Judge: Harradence, Hetherington and Conrad, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: December 21, 1995
• Citations: (1995), 178 A.R. 1 (CA)

USA v. Barrientos (1995), 178 A.R. 1 (CA);

    110 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada and the Attorney General of Canada, representing the United States of America (respondents) v. Roberto Barrientos (appellant)

(Appeal No. 94-15247)

Indexed As: United States of America v. Barrientos

Alberta Court of Appeal

Harradence, Hetherington and

Conrad, JJ.A.

December 21, 1995.

Summary:

Barrientos was convicted of two immigra­tion offences in the United States. He fled to Canada before sentencing. The United States sought extradition.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench issued a Warrant of Committal to detain Barrientos pending extradition. Barrientos appealed, claiming that (1) the United States immigra­tion offences were not "extradition crimes" under the Extradition Act and Canada-United States Extradition Treaty; (2) the offences were not sufficiently "serious" to justify a Warrant of Committal; and (3) the evidence presented was insufficient to sup­port extradition.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Hethering­ton, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal, set aside the Warrant of Committal and ordered Barrientos' release. Harradence, J.A., stated that the immigration offences were not "extradition crimes", which were reserved for offences requiring imposition of a sen­tence of imprisonment (only offences pro­viding for imprisonment for more than five years). Conrad, J.A., found it unnecessary to determine that issue, because immigration offences were regula­tory offences and not "crimes" in the true sense. Hetherington, J.A., would have dismissed the appeal on the ground that the trial judge was correct in finding the immigration offences to be ex­tradition crimes.

Extradition - Topic 605

Extraditable offences - General - "Extra­dition crime" defined - Article 2(1) of the Canada-U.S. Extradition Treaty provided for extradition where the offence was punishable in both countries by more than one year's imprisonment - Barrientos was convicted of immigration offences in the U.S. - The offences would be offences in Canada (Immigration Act, s. 94(1)), pun­ishable by a maximum of two years' im­prisonment - The Alberta Court of Appeal, Hetherington, J.A., dissenting, set aside a Warrant of Committal - Harradence, J.A., stated that immigration offences were not extradition crimes, because they did not "require" imprisonment and the possibility of imprisonment for more than one year - Imprisonment was only required where the offence provided for imprisonment for five years or more - Conrad, J.A., did not address that issue, because immigration offences, including conspiracy to commit them, were regulatory offences and not "crimes" in the true sense - Hetherington, J.A., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal on the ground that the immigration offences were extradition crimes.

Extradition - Topic 718

Extraditable offences - Canada-U.S. Treaty - Immigration offences - [See Extradition - Topic 605 ].

Cases Noticed:

Berardinelli v. Ontario Housing Corp. et al., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 275; 23 N.R. 298; 90 D.L.R.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 7].

Marcotte v. Canada (Deputy Attorney General), [1976] 1 S.C.R. 108; 3 N.R. 613, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398; 152 N.R. 247; 62 O.A.C. 285, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Goulis (1981), 125 D.L.R.(3d) 137 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Paré, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 618; 80 N.R. 272; 11 Q.A.C. 1; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 60 C.R.(3d) 346; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 12].

Schmidt v. Canada et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 500; 76 N.R. 12; 20 O.A.C. 161; 58 C.R.(3d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 280; 39 D.L.R.(4th) 18; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 13].

Argentina (Republic) v. Mellino, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 536; 76 N.R. 51; 80 A.R. 1; 52 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 262; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 334; 40 D.L.R.(4th) 74, refd to. [para. 16].

Brisson v. Etas-Unis d'Amérique et autres (1993), J.E. 93-627 (S.C.), affd. (1994), 61 Q.A.C. 198 (C.A.), dist. [para. 17].

R. v. Reed (1974), 23 C.C.C.(2d) 121 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

Chief v. Sutton (1963), 42 D.L.R.(2d) 712 (Man. Q.B.), affd. (1964), 44 D.L.R.(2d) 108 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

United States of America v. McVey (1992), 144 N.R. 81; 16 B.C.A.C. 241; 28 W.A.C. 241; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 30].

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; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 54].

Washington (State) et al. v. Johnson (1988), 83 N.R. 1; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 546 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 54].

Doyer v. Downs (Juge) et autres (1992), 51 Q.A.C. 1; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 203 (C.A.), revd. (1993), 159 N.R. 397; 59 Q.A.C. 99; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 192 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

Sherras v. DeRutzen, [1895] Q.B. 918, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Pierce Fisheries Ltd., [1970] 5 C.C.C. 193; 3 N.S.R. 1965-69 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 161; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353; 3 C.R.(3d) 30; 7 C.E.L.R. 53, refd to. [para. 63].

Strasser v. Roberge (1979), 29 N.R. 541; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 129 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 8 C.R.(4th) 145, refd to. [para. 65].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 76 C.R.(3d) 129; 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. McKinlay Transport Ltd. and C.T. Transport Inc., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 627; 106 N.R. 385; 39 O.A.C. 385; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 530, refd to. [para. 67].

Beaver v. R. (1957), 118 C.C.C. 129 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 68].

Cotroni v. Canada (Attorney General) (1974), 3 N.R. 292; 18 C.C.C.(2d) 513 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Singh (1981), 12 Man.R.(2d) 319; 63 C.C.C.(2d) 156 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Malhotra (1980), 57 C.C.C.(2d) 539 (Man. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 73].

Lattoni v. R., [1958] S.C.R. 603, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Aziz (1981), 35 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Hauser, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984; 26 N.R. 541; 16 A.R. 91, refd to. [para. 81].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada-United States Extradition Treaty, Can. T.S. 1991, No. 37, art. 2(1) [para. 4]; art. 2(2) [paras. 47].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 465(1)(c) [para. 74].

Extradition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-23, sect. 1 [para. 4]; sect. 2 [paras. 45, 46, 90]; sect. 3 [para. 50]; sect. 18 [para. 4]; sect. 19.2 [para. 90].

Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, sect. 3 [para. 71]; sect. 94(1)(b), sect. 94(1)(h), sect. 94(1)(m) [para. 69]; sect. 94(2) [para. 98].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 12 [para. 8]; sect. 34(1)(a), sect. 34(2) [para. 76]; sect. 45(2), sect. 45(3) [para. 23].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 168, 169 [para. 57].

La Forest, Gerald V., Extradition to and from Canada (2nd Ed. 1977), p. 42 [para. 55].

La Forest, Gerald V., Extradition to and from Canada (3rd Ed. 1991), pp. 21 [para. 13]; 26 [para. 26]; 49 [para. 54]; 72 [para. 59].

Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Ed. 1989) [para. 5].

Random House Dictionary of the English Language (1983) [paras. 6, 103].

Counsel:

Donald D. Lowe, for the appellant;

Robert Prior, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Harradence, Hetherington and Conrad, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On December 21, 1995, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Harradence, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 38;

Conrad, J.A. - see paragraphs 39 to 88;

Hetherington, J.A., dissenting - see

paragraphs 89 to 113.