United States of America v. Ritter, 2006 ABQB 576

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 11, 2006
• Citations: 2006 ABQB 576;(2006), 406 A.R. 341 (QB)

USA v. Ritter (2006), 406 A.R. 341 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. AU.017

United States of America (respondent) v. Michael P. Ritter (applicant)

(031274475X1; 2006 ABQB 576)

Indexed As: United States of America v. Ritter

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

July 25, 2006.

Summary:

The Minister issued an authority to proceed with extradition (ATP) regarding Ritter, who faced charges in California. After major charges against Ritter arose in Canada, the Minister reconsidered and confirmed the ATP. Ritter applied for an order requiring the Minister to disclose communications with prosecutors regarding the ATP's reconsideration and, failing disclosure, an order either staying the extradition or striking the ATP.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Editor's note: for related decisions, see [2005] A.R. Uned. 178, [2005] A.R. Uned. 193; 400 A.R. 301 and 400 A.R. 305.

Extradition - Topic 2648

Evidence and procedure before examining judge - Evidence - General - Disclosure - The Minister issued an authority to proceed with extradition (ATP) regarding Ritter, who faced charges in California - After major charges against Ritter arose in Canada, the Minister reconsidered and confirmed the ATP - Ritter applied for an order requiring the Minister to disclose communications with prosecutors regarding the ATP's reconsideration and, failing disclosure, an order either staying the extradition or striking the ATP - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - Unless Ritter was able to establish an air of reality to an alleged Charter breach or demonstrate that the Minister's decision was deeply flawed from the perspective of natural justice, his rights of disclosure were limited to the actual extradition issues - However, there was nothing unjust or irrational in the Minister's decision to confirm the ATP - There was no legal connection between the domestic charges and the American charges - Deficiencies in the decision, itself, alleged by Ritter raised no legitimate concerns as to either the decision's substance or the way the Minister reached his conclusion - Thus, Ritter was not entitled to the requested disclosure - See paragraphs 23 to 37.

Extradition - Topic 2648

Evidence and procedure before examining judge - Evidence - General - Disclosure - The Minister issued an authority to proceed with extradition (ATP) regarding Ritter, who faced charges in California - After major charges against Ritter arose in Canada, the Minister reconsidered and confirmed the ATP - In dismissing Ritter's application for disclosure of communications between the Minister and prosecutors leading to the confirmation decision, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench concluded that United States of America et al. v. Ferras (S.C.C.) had not changed the disclosure standard that applied in extradition proceedings - The court relied on the similarity between the Minister's role at the ATP stage in allowing extradition proceedings to go forward and a prosecutor's decision to initiate criminal proceedings or to refuse to consent to a re-election to trial by judge alone - The only situation in which the court was entitled to review prosecutorial discretion was the limited case of an abuse of process where the prosecutor's misconduct threatened either the accused's right to a fair trial or the public interest in a fair and just trial process - This was a high threshold that applied both before and after Ferras - Ritter had not crossed that threshold - See paragraphs 38 to 44.

Extradition - Topic 2702

Evidence and procedure before examining judge - Procedure - Authority to proceed - [See both Extradition - Topic 2648 ].

Cases Noticed:

United States of America et al. v. Ferras (2006), 351 N.R. 1; 214 O.A.C. 326 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 3].

Froom v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (2004), 327 N.R. 304 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (2005), 339 N.R. 194 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 3].

United States of America v. Kwok (2001), 267 N.R. 310; 145 O.A.C. 36; 152 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Ng (K.-F.) (2003), 327 A.R. 215; 296 W.A.C. 215 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (2004), 330 N.R. 396; 363 A.R. 399; 343 W.A.C. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

United States of America v. Cobb et al. (2001), 267 N.R. 203; 145 O.A.C. 3; 152 C.C.C.(3d) 270 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Seifert, [2003] B.C.T.C. 991 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

Italy v. Seifert - see Canada (Attorney General) v. Seifert.

United States of America et al. v. Manns (2004), 195 B.C.A.C. 241; 319 W.A.C. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Thailand (Kingdom) v. Saxena (2006), 226 B.C.A.C. 122; 373 W.A.C. 122 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Carey v. Ontario et al. (1986), 72 N.R. 81; 20 O.A.C. 81; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 498 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Leeds et al. v. Alberta (Minister of the Environment) et al. (1990), 106 A.R. 105; 69 D.L.R.(4th) 681 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Meuckon (1990), 57 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Gray, [1992] B.C.T.C. Uned. 250; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 267 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Palmer v. Gray et al. (1993), 23 B.C.A.C. 208; 39 W.A.C. 208; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 332 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (1993), 163 N.R. 80; 45 B.C.A.C. 240; 72 W.A.C. 240; 83 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Gray - see Palmer v. Gray et al.

R. v. Sander (1992), 96 D.L.R.(4th) 85 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Sander (1993), 79 C.C.C.(3d) 63 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Canada (Attorney General) et al. v. Sander (1994), 44 B.C.A.C. 200; 71 W.A.C. 200; 90 C.C.C.(3d) 41 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Mai (M.V.) (1994), 153 A.R. 173 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Hamilton (G.) (1994), 125 Sask.R. 66; 81 W.A.C. 66; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 37 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

L.L.A. v. Beharriell (1995), 190 N.R. 329; 88 O.A.C. 241 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. L.L.A. - see L.L.A. v. Beharriell.

R. v. Pickering (O.T.) et al. (1996), 111 Man.R.(2d) 291 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Nesbeth (P.) (1996), 19 O.T.C. 287 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Newsom (W.L.) (1996), 197 A.R. 221 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

A.M. v. Ryan (1997), 207 N.R. 81; 85 B.C.A.C. 81; 138 W.A.C. 81 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Le (V.) (1997), 197 A.R. 341 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Stone (B.T.) (1997), 87 B.C.A.C. 153; 143 W.A.C. 153 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.) (1999), 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 257 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Johal, [1995] B.C.J. No. 1271 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Matthiessen, [1995] A.J. No. 700 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Regan (G.A.) (1997), 174 N.S.R.(2d) 72; 532 A.P.R. 72 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Scaduto (S.) (1999), 97 O.T.C. 307 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

Johnson v. McKay et al. (1999), 187 Sask.R. 294 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

Regina (City) Police v. McKay - see Johnson v. McKay et al.

United States of America v. Cheema et al. (1999), 14 B.C.T.C. 217 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Jones v. Smith, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 455; 236 N.R. 201; 120 B.C.A.C. 161; 196 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Murray (K.) et al., [2000] O.T.C. 274 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Derose (A.S.) et al. (2000), 264 A.R. 359 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Greganti (S.), [2000] O.T.C. 30 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Creswell (F.A.) (2000), 146 B.C.A.C. 7; 239 W.A.C. 7 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Desabrais (N.D.) (2000), 146 B.C.A.C. 23; 239 W.A.C. 23 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Jageshur, [2000] O.J. No. 4291 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Castro (J.F.) et al. (2001), 157 B.C.A.C. 97; 256 W.A.C. 97; 2001 BCCA 507, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. McKay (D.) et al. (2002), 344 A.R. 59; 2002 ABQB 335, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Fosty and Gruenke (1991), 130 N.R. 161; 75 Man.R.(2d) 112; 6 W.A.C. 112; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

Jones v. Smith (1999), 236 N.R. 201; 120 B.C.A.C. 161; 196 W.A.C. 161; 132 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. McClure (D.E.) (2001), 266 N.R. 275; 142 O.A.C. 201; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Schacher (D.G.) (2003), 339 A.R. 119; 312 W.A.C. 119 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

United States of America v. Shulman (2001), 268 N.R. 115; 145 O.A.C. 201; 152 C.C.C.(3d) 294 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

Whitley v. United States of America (1994), 75 O.A.C. 100; 94 C.C.C.(3d) 99 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Idziak v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (1989), 53 C.C.C.(3d) 464 (Ont. H.C.), affd. (1990), 67 D.L.R.(4th) 639 (Ont. C.A.), affd. (1992), 144 N.R. 327; 59 O.A.C. 241; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 65 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Power (E.) (1994), 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

United States of America v.Wong, [2006] O.J. No. 2052 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 18].

Ritter et al. v. Hoag et al. (2003), 327 A.R. 17; 296 W.A.C. 17 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Ritter et al. v. Hoag et al. (2004), 363 A.R. 372; 343 W.A.C. 372 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2005), 344 N.R. 195 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

United States of America v. Ritter, [2005] A.R. Uned. 178 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Newport Financial Pacific Group S.A. et al. (2003), 335 A.R. 283 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 20].

United States of America v. Saad (2004), 184 O.A.C. 282; 183 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix B].

United States of America v. Drysdale et al. (2004), 185 O.A.C. 125; 183 C.C.C.(3d) 133 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix B].

United States of America v. Manningham - see United States of America v. Drysdale et al.

Counsel:

Sid M. Tarrabain, Q.C. (Tarrabain & Company (subsequent to the bringing of this application, Mr. Tarrabain ceased to act for Mr. Ritter in these proceedings)) and Robert H. Davidson, Q.C. (Davidson Gregory), for Michael P. Ritter;

Gregory A. Rice (Department of Justice Canada), on behalf of the United States of America.

This application was heard on May 11, 2006, by Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on July 25, 2006.