United States of America et al. v. Dynar, (1997) 213 N.R. 321 (SCC)

• Judge: Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 26, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1997), 213 N.R. 321 (SCC);8 CR (5th) 79;[1997] SCJ No 64 (QL);[1997] ACS no 64;213 NR 321;101 OAC 321;115 CCC (3d) 481;33 OR (3d) 478;[1997] CarswellOnt 1982;[1997] 2 SCR 462;44 CRR (2d) 189;JE 97-1400;1997 CanLII 359 (SCC);35 WCB (2d) 8;147 DLR (4th) 399

USA v. Dynar (1997), 213 N.R. 321 (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: [1997] N.R. TBEd. JN.031

United States of America and the Honourable Allan Rock, Minister of Justice for Canada (appellants) v. Arye Dynar (respondent)

(24997)

Indexed As: United States of America et al. v. Dynar

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest,

L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin,

Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

June 26, 1997.

Summary:

Dynar, a Canadian citizen, avoided a drug money laundering sting operation mounted in the United States by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. On the basis of affidavits from the investigating officers and tran­scripts of wiretaps involving Dynar and police informants, the United States applied for Dynar's extradition to face two charges relating to money laundering: (1) attempting to launder money and (2) conspiracy to launder money. There was no indication that Canadian authorities were involved in the investigation.

The Ontario Court (General Division), in a deci­sion reported [1994] O.J. No. 3940, ordered that Dynar be committed for extra­dition. The extradition judge noted that while the judi­cial authoriz­ation for the wiretap would have been ref­used in Canada, it was valid in the United States and could be used in the extradition proceeding. The extradition judge stated that Charter relief was not possible because the infringe­ment did not result from Canadian state action, and did not involve the coop­eration of the Canadian authorities. The fact that the evidence was used in the extradition appli­cation did not engage the Charter. However, in his report to the Min­ister of Justice, the extradition judge criti­cized the conduct of the American au­thor­ities in fail­ing to notify the Canadian auth­orities of their actions. The Minister then informed Dynar that the Cana­dian authorities had been aware of what the Americans were doing. Never­theless, the Minister was not persuaded that the hearing should be reopened. The Minis­ter submitted that the lack of Canadian involvement in the investi­gation did not form the basis of the extradi­tion judge's decision that the Charter did not apply to the evidence gathering process as carried on within the United States. The Minister then ordered that Dynar be surren­dered to the United States. Dynar appealed the extradition judge's decision and applied for judicial review of the Min­ister's order.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 85 O.A.C. 9, held that the offences which Dynar were charged with did not constitute criminal offences in Canada because the money involved was not actually the pro­ceeds of crime. The court set aside the committal for extradition order and directed that Dynar be discharged. The Court of Appeal also allowed the application for judicial review and quashed the Minister's order. The United States appealed. Dynar cross-appealed on the ground that he was entitled to receive disclosure of information regarding the involvement of the Canadian authorities in the investigation with a view to establishing a violation of his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Free­doms.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 2628

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Attempts - Where commission of offence impossible - Following a sting operation, a Canadian was charged in the United States with attempting to launder drug money - The accused submitted that he should not be extradited because the alleged actions did not constitute a crime in Canada because the funds were not actually the proceeds of crime - The accused submitted that s. 462.31(1) of the Criminal Code required knowledge that the funds were the proceeds of crime, not mere belief - However, s. 24(1) of the Code made it an offence to attempt an offence whether or not it was impossible under the circumstances to commit the offence - The accused claimed that the provision only applied to attempts that were factually impossible not those that were legally impossible - The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the accused could be charged with attempting to com­mit the offence - See paragraphs 49 to 83.

Criminal Law - Topic 2647.1

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Conspiracies - Where commis­sion of offence impossible - [See Crimi­nal Law - Topic 2628 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 2647.1

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Conspiracies - Where commis­sion of offence impossible - Following a sting operation, two Canadians were charged in the United States with attempt­ing to launder drug money - Dynar, one of the accused, submitted that he should not be extradited because the alleged actions did not constitute a crime in Canada because the funds were not actually the proceeds of crime - The accused sub­mitted that s. 462.31(1) of the Criminal Code required knowledge that the funds were the proceeds of crime, not mere belief - The United States submitted that one could be charged with conspiracy even when one could not be charged with the substantive offence - The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the accused could be charged with conspiracy - See paragraphs 86 to 114.

Criminal Law - Topic 2647.1

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Conspiracies - Where commis­sion of offence impossible - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "since the offence of conspiracy only requires an intention to commit the substantive offence, and not the commission of the offence itself, it does not matter that, from an objective point of view, commission of the offence may be impossible. It is the subjective point of view that is important, and from a subjective perspective, con­spirators who intend to commit an indict­able offence intend to do everything ne­ces­sary to satisfy the conditions of the offence. The fact that they cannot do so because of an objective circumstance is not as they believe it to be does not in any way affect this intention. The intention of the conspirators remains the same, ..." - See paragraph 105.

Extradition - Topic 8

General - Extradition - Application of Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the application of the Charter to extradition proceedings - See paragraphs 123 to 126.

Extradition - Topic 223

Treaties - Application - Crime not an offence in Canada when committed - Money laundering sting operation - As part of a money laundering sting operation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation attempted to entice Dynar to enter the United States - Dynar sent an associate instead - The United States applied for Dynar's extradition on a charge of attempted money laundering and on a conspiracy to launder charge - Dynar opposed the application on the ground that the offences were not known to Canadian law which required actual knowledge that the money was derived from crime as opposed to mere belief - Furthermore, a conspiracy charge could not be brought if the substantive charge was not an offence in Canada - The Ontario Court of Appeal quashed the deportation order - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the deportation order - See paragraphs 37 to 114.

Extradition - Topic 705

Extradictable offences - Canada-U.S. Treaty - Double criminality - [See Crim­inal Law - Topic 2628 and second Cri­minal Law - Topic 2647.1 ].

Extradition - Topic 707

Extraditable offences - Canada-U.S. Treaty - Conspiracy - Money laundering - [See Extradition - Topic 223 ].

Extradition - Topic 2648

Evidence and procedure before examining judge - Evidence - General - Disclosure - Following a sting operation, two Cana­dians (Dynar and Cohen) were charged in the United States with attempting to launder drug money - The United States applied for Dynar's extradition - The application was based on the affidavits of United States' police officers and United States' wiretap transcripts - Dynar sub­mitted that he should not be extradited because, inter alia, the alleged actions did not constitute a crime in Canada - The extradition judge held there was a prima facie case - The Minister ordered extra­dition - Dynar appealed on the ground, inter alia, that his right to a fair hear­ing under s. 7 of the Charter was breached because he was not given full disclosure of the materials in the hands of the United States authorities, not informed of the involvement of the Cana­dian auth­orities, and not given dis­closure of materials held by Canadian authorities - The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the extradition order - See paragraphs 127 to 148.

Words and Phrases

Knowing - The Supreme Court of Canada considered the meaning of "knowing" as it is employed in s. 462.31(1) of the Crimi­nal Code and s. 19.2(1) of the Nar­cotic Control Act - See paragraphs 37 to 109 and 153 to 166.

Cases Noticed:

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, consd. [para. 14].

R. v. Zundel (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731; 140 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 161, consd. [para. 42].

R. v. Vogelle and Reid, [1970] 3 C.C.C. 171 (Man. C.A.), consd. [para. 43].

R. v. Stevens (B.G.) (1995), 100 Man.R.(2d) 81; 91 W.A.C. 81; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 238 (C.A.), consd. [para. 43].

R. v. Irwin, [1968] 2 C.C.C. 50 (Alta. C.A.), consd. [para. 44].

R. v. Irwin, [1968] S.C.R. 462, consd. [para. 44].

Gravel v. St. Léonard (City), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 660; 17 N.R. 486, consd. [para. 46].

R. v. Cline (1956), 115 C.C.C. 18 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Ancio, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 225; 52 N.R. 161; 2 O.A.C. 124; 10 C.C.C.(3d) 385, consd. [para. 50].

R. v. Deutsch, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 2; 68 N.R. 321; 18 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Gladstone (W.) et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723; 200 N.R. 189; 79 B.C.A.C. 161; 129 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Donnelly, [1970] N.Z.L.R. 980 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 54].

R. v. McIntosh (B.B.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 686; 178 N.R. 161; 79 O.A.C. 81, consd. [para. 58].

R. v. O'Brien, [1954] S.C.R. 666, consd. [para. 86].

Mulcahy v. R. (1868), L.R. 3 H.L. 306, consd. [para. 86].

R. v. Cotroni; R. v. Papalia, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 256; 26 N.R. 133, consd. [para. 87].

R. v. Guimond, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 960; 26 N.R. 91, refd to. [para. 88].

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Nock and Alsford, [1978] 2 All E.R. 654 (H.L.), not folld. [para. 92].

Haughton v. Smith (R.D.), [1973] 3 All E.R. 1109 (H.L.), not folld. [para. 95].

R. v. Shivpuri, [1986] 2 All E.R. 334 (H.L.), folld. [para. 95].

R. v. Atkinson, [1987] O.J. No. 1930 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Sew Hoy, [1994] 1 N.Z.L.R. 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Wah, [1964] 1 C.C.C. 313 (Ont. C.A.), dist. [para. 99].

R. v. Smith (Howard) Paper Mills Ltd., [1957] S.C.R. 403, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Whitchurch (1890), 24 Q.B.D. 420, refd to. [para. 101].

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; [1987] 4 W.W.R. 289, consd. [para. 120].

United States of America v. Lépine, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 286; 163 N.R. 1; 69 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 120].

Puerto Rico (Commonwealth) v. Hernandez, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 228, refd to. [para. 121].

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. 121].

United States of America v. Allard and Charette, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 564; 75 N.R. 260; 8 Q.A.C. 178, refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 127].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 127].

R. v. Chaplin (D.A.) et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 727; 178 N.R. 118; 162 A.R. 272; 83 W.A.C. 272, refd to. [para. 127].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 128].

Chiarelli v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711; 135 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 128].

Idziak v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 631; 144 N.R. 327; 59 O.A.C. 241, consd. [para. 128].

Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779; 129 N.R. 81, consd. [para. 129].

Philippines (Republic) v. Pacificador (1993), 64 O.A.C. 344; 14 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1994] 1 S.C.R. x; 175 N.R. 160; 72 O.A.C. 159, refd to. [para. 132].

Whitley v. United States of America (1994), 75 O.A.C. 100; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 99 (C.A.), affd. [1996] 1 S.C.R. 467; 197 N.R. 169; 91 O.A.C. 121, refd to. [para. 134].

R. v. Terry (R.S.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 207; 197 N.R. 105; 76 B.C.A.C. 25; 125 W.A.C. 25, consd. [para. 137].

R. v. Harrer (H.M.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; 186 N.R. 329; 64 B.C.A.C. 161; 105 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 139].

People v. Jaffe (1905), 78 N.E. 169 (N.Y.C.A.), not folld. [para. 150].

R. v. Zundel (1987), 18 O.A.C. 161; 31 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), consd. [para. 161].

R. v. Streu, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1521; 96 N.R. 58; 97 A.R. 356, refd to. [para. 162].

R. v. Collins (1864), 9 Cox C.C. 497, consd. [para. 172].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 124]; sect. 9(3), sect. 24(2) [para. 26]; sect. 32 [para. 123].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 19.2(1) [para. 40]; sect. 24(1) [paras. 49, 154]; sect. 24(2) [para. 17]; sect. 462.31(1) [paras. 15, 40, 155]; sect. 465(1)(c) [para. 17].

Extradition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-23, sect. 9(3) [para. 18]; sect. 13, sect. 18(1)(b) [paras. 18, 119]; sect. 19(b) [para. 22].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 45(3) [para. 46].

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, sect. 4(1) [para. 159]; sect. 19.2(1) [paras. 16, 155].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Barry, "Th'attempt, and not the deed, Confounds us", Section 24 and Impossible Attempts (1981), 19 U.W.O.L. Rev. 225, pp. 228 [para. 54]; 229 [paras. 54, 57]; 232 [paras. 66, 72].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Secondary Liability: Participation in Crime and Inchoate Offences, Working Paper No. 45 (1985), pp. 33, 36 [para. 176].

Colvin, Eric, Principles of Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1991), pp. 355, 356 [paras. 52, 60]; 358 [paras. 64, 96].

Fletcher, George P., Rethinking Criminal Law (1978), pp. 161 [para. 77]; 162 [para. 78].

La Forest, Anne Warner, Extradi­tion To and From Canada (3rd Ed. 1991), pp. 25 [para. 125]; 132 [para. 124]; 160 [para. 143].

Meehan, Eugene M.A., Attempt - Some Rational Thoughts on Its Rationale (1976-1977), 19 Crim. L.Q. 215, p. 238 [para. 66].

Mewett, Alan W., and Manning, Morris, Criminal Law (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 341 [para. 98].

Rainville, Pierre, La gradation de la culpabilité morale et des formes de risque de préjudice dans le cadre de la répression de la tentative (1996), 37 C. de D. 909, pp. 954, 955 [para. 65]; 963 [para. 69].

Stuart, Don, Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise (3rd Ed. 1995), pp. 594 [para. 66]; 644, 645 [para. 97].

Williams, Glanville, Attempting the Impossible - A Reply (1979-1980), 22 Crim. L.Q. 49, p. 52 [para. 173].

Williams, Glanville, Criminal Law - The General Part (2nd Ed. 1961), p. 710 [para. 90].

Williams, Glanville, Textbook of Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1983), pp. 71 [para. 68]; 160 [paras. 41, 157]; 404, 405 [para. 66].

Williams, Glanville, The Lords and Impossible Attempts, or Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?, [1986] Camb. L.J. 33, pp. 78 [para. 79]; 81, 82 [para. 175].

Counsel:

Robert W. Hubbard and Croft Michaelson, for the appellants;

Frank Addario, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Robert Hubbard and Croft Michaelson, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants;

Sack, Goldblatt, Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 28, 1997, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On June 26, 1997, the judgment of the court was rendered and the following opinions were filed:

Cory and Iacobucci, JJ. (Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 148;

Major, J., (Sopinka and McLachlin, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 149 to 179.