United States of America v. Parvulescu, (1999) 249 A.R. 41 (QB)

• Judge: Rooke, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 27, 1999
• Citations: (1999), 249 A.R. 41 (QB)

USA v. Parvulescu (1999), 249 A.R. 41 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] A.R. TBEd. AU.033

The United States of America (applicant/requesting state) v. Gheorghe Parvulescu (respondent/fugitive)

(Action No. 9801-0538-C6)

Indexed As: United States of America v. Parvulescu

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Rooke, J.

May 27, 1999.

Summary:

The United States applied to extradite Parvulescu. In seeking extradition, the United States sought to rely upon affidavits, official transcripts and other non-viva voce evidence from the proceedings in a prelimi­nary inquiry and a trial in Canada arising out of the same conduct.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that there was no authority for the receipt of this documentary evidence.

Extradition - Topic 2643.1

Evidence and procedure before examining judge - Evidence - General - Documentary evidence - Parvulescu was convicted in Canada of possession of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking, importing and conspiracy to import - He was also indicted in the United States for four of­fences arising out of the same conduct - The United States applied to extradite Parvulescu - The United States sought to avoid calling viva voce evidence by rely­ing on certified copies of the transcripts of Parvulescu's preliminary inquiry, judgment at trial (conviction and sentencing) and an affidavit of the principal Crown witness attaching a transcript of his trial evidence -The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that there was no authority in the Extradi­tion Act for the receipt of this documen­tary evidence.

Cases Noticed:

Schmidt v. Canada et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 500; 76 N.R. 12; 20 O.A.C. 161; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 58 C.R.(3d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 280; 39 D.L.R.(4th) 18, refd to. [para. 7].

Argentina (Republic) v. Mellino, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 536; 76 N.R. 51; 80 A.R. 1; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 334, refd to. [para. 7].

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. 7].

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; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 7].

United States of America v. Lépine, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 286; 163 N.R. 1; 69 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 7].

United States of America et al. v. Dynar, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 462; 213 N.R. 321; 101 O.A.C. 321; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 7].

United States of America v. Smith (1984), 2 O.A.C. 1; 10 C.C.C.(3d) 540 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Philippines (Republic) v. Pacificador (1993), 64 O.A.C. 344; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Nixon, Re (1984), 1 O.A.C. 296; 10 C.C.C.(3d) 376 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

United States of America v. Houslander (1993), 13 O.R.(3d) 44 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Charemski (J.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 679; 224 N.R. 120; 108 O.A.C. 126; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 225, refd to. [para. 10].

United States of America v. Shephard, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067; 9 N.R. 215; 30 C.C.C.(2d) 424; 70 D.L.R.(3d) 136; 34 C.R.N.S. 207, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Monteleone, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 154; 78 N.R. 377; 23 O.A.C. 241; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Skogman, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 93; 54 N.R. 34; 13 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 10].

United States of America v. Turenne (1998), 133 Man.R.(2d) 131 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

Wisconsin (State) v. Armstrong (1973), 10 C.C.C.(2d) 271 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Insull, Re, [1933] O.R. 675 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Statutes Noticed:

Extradition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-23, sect. 13 [para. 23]; sect. 14 [para. 24].

Authors and Works Noticed:

LaForest, Anne Warner, Extradition to and from Canada (3rd Ed. 1991), p. 151 [para. 25].

Counsel:

L. Proulx, for the applicant;

J. Turner, for the respondent.

This motion was heard by Rooke, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered oral judgment on May 27, 1999, and issued the following written reasons on July 16, 1999.