United States of America v. Smith, (1984) 2 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

JudgeHowland, C.J.O., Lacourcière and Houlden, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ontario)
Case DateJanuary 27, 1984
JurisdictionOntario
Citations(1984), 2 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

USA v. Smith (1984), 2 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

United States of America on behalf of the State of California v. Smith

Indexed As: United States of America v. Smith

Ontario Court of Appeal

Howland, C.J.O., Lacourcière and Houlden, JJ.A.

January 27, 1984.

Summary:

The United States of America on behalf of the State of California applied for the extradition of Catherine Smith to stand trial in California on a charge of murdering John Belushi. At the extradition hearing the U.S. tendered 27 affidavits as evidence. Smith objected to the admission of nine of the affidavits and applied for the opportunity to cross-examine the deponents of them. Smith submitted that the right to cross-examine was guaranteed by ss. 7 and 11 (d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 7 guaranteed the right not to be deprived of liberty except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Section 11(d) guaranteed the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty.

The Extradition Court dismissed the application and admitted the affidavits into evidence. Without waiting for the conclusion of the hearing Smith applied to quash the ruling and for prohibition with certiorari in aid.

The Ontario High Court in a judgment reported 42 O.R.(2d) 688 dismissed the application. Smith appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The court held that s. 11 (d) of the Charter was inapplicable to extradition proceedings, because guilt was not in issue. See paragraph 14. The court held that the denial of the right to cross-examine at an extradition hearing did not contravene the principles of fundamental justice within the meaning of s. 7. See paragraphs 15 to 34. Even if it had the court was of the opinion that the limitation on the right to cross-examine in s. 16 of the Extradition Act and Article 10(2) of the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Canada was a reasonable one demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter. See paragraphs 35 to 55. The court was further of the opinion that Smith should not have interrupted the extradition hearing to test the evidentiary ruling by the Extradition Court by prohibition and certiorari, because she had the adequate remedy of habeas corpus upon termination of the hearing. See paragraphs 56 to 59.

See also Global Communications Limited v. State of California, 2 O.A.C. 21.

Administrative Law - Topic 5189

Judicial review - Certiorari - Bars - Existence of alternate remedy - Without waiting for the termination of the extradition hearing a fugitive applied for prohibition with certiorari in aid to quash a ruling admitting affidavits into evidence without cross-examination of the deponents - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the fugitive should not have interrupted the hearing by the application, because the ruling could have been challenged by habeas corpus at the conclusion of the hearing - See paragraphs 56 to 59.

Administrative Law - Topic 6403

Judicial review - Prohibition - Bars - Existence of alternate remedy - Without waiting for the termination of the extradition hearing a fugitive applied for prohibition with certiorari in aid to quash a ruling admitting affidavits into evidence without cross-examination of the deponents - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the fugitive should not have interrupted the hearing by the application, because the ruling could have been challenged by habeas corpus at the conclusion of the hearing - See paragraphs 56 to 59.

Civil Rights - Topic 3192

Trials - Due process and fair hearings - Administrative and non-criminal proceedings - Procedure contrary to fundamental justice - Right to cross-examine deponents - The Extradition Court admitted affidavits into evidence against a fugitive after refusing to permit the fugitive to cross-examine the deponents on the contents of the affidavits - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the refusal to permit cross-examination of the deponents in an extradition hearing did not violate the principles of fundamental justice within the meaning of s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - See paragraphs 15 to 34.

Civil Rights - Topic 4905

Presumption of innocence - General principles - When applicable - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the presumption of innocence guaranteed by s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was inapplicable to extradition proceedings, because guilt was not in issue - See paragraph 14.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the unavailability of the right to cross-examination of the deponent of an affidavit in an extradition hearing did not violate the principles of fundamental justice within the meaning of s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - The court held further that if the lack of cross-examination did violate the principles of fundamental justice, the limitation was reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free democratic society within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 35 to 55.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - Burden of proof - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the burden of proving that a limitation on a Charter right is reasonable rests upon the party relying upon the limitation - See paragraph 36.

CIvil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - Evidence - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that in considering whether a limitation of a right is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Charter, it is permissible to consider the limitations imposed in other free and democratic societies - See paragraph 37 - In considering whether there was a right to cross-examine the deponent of an affidavit in an extradition hearing the Ontario Court of Appeal considered extradition legislation in the United States, Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia and Europe - See paragraphs 37 to 55.

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular phrases - Principles of fundamental justice - Right to cross-examine deponents of affidavit in extradition hearing - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the lack of a right to cross-examine deponents of affidavits in an extradition hearing did not contravene the principles of fundamental justice within the meaning of s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - See paragraphs 15 to 34.

Extradition - Topic 2643

Evidence and procedure before examining judge - Evidence - General - Affidavits - Cross-examination of deponents - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the lack of a right to cross-examine deponents of affidavits in an extradition hearing did not contravene the principles of fundamental justice within the meaning of s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - See paragraphs 15 to 34.

Extradition - Topic 3945

Practice - Judicial review - Time for - Without waiting for the termination of the extradition hearing a fugitive applied for prohibition with certiorari in aid to quash a ruling admitting affidavits into evidence without cross-examination of the opponents - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the fugitive should not have interrupted the hearing by the application, because the ruling could have been challenged by habeas corpus at the conclusion of the hearing - See paragraphs 56 to 59.

Cases Noticed:

Re Schmidt and R. et al. (1983), 4 C.C.C.(3d) 409, folld. [para. 12].

United States of America v. Yue et al. (1983), 40 O.R.(2d) 780, folld. [para. 12].

Re United States of America and Yue et al. (1983), 42 O.R.(2d) 651, folld. [para. 12].

Re Demarco (1982), 2 C.R.R. 314, refd to. [para. 13].

United States of America v. Copses, (1982), 9 W.C.B. 15 (Summary), refd to. [para. 15].

Re Decter (1983), 57 N.S.R.(2d) 204; 120 A.P.R. 204; 5 C.C.C.(3d) 364, folld. [para. 15].

Re Insull (1934), 61 C.C.C. 336, refd to. [para. 17].

Re State of Wisconsin and Armstrong (1973), 10 C.C.C.(2d) 271, consd. [para. 17].

Re Republic of Italy and Piperno (1982), 1 C.C.C.(3d) 557, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Churchman and Durham (1954), 110 C.C.C. 382, refd to. [para. 21].

Re R. and Roulette (1972), 7 C.C.C.(2d) 244, refd to. [para. 21].

Re Durette and R. (1979), 47 C.C.C.(2d) 170, refd to. [para. 21].

Re Senechal and R. (1980), 52 C.C.C.(2d) 313, refd to. [para. 21].

Re Insull (1933), 60 C.C.C. 254, consd. [para. 22].

Ex parte O'Dell and Griffen (1953), 105 C.C.C. 256, consd. [para. 26].

Vardy v. Scott et al. (1976), 8 N.R. 91; 66 D.L.R.(3d) 431, consd. [para. 29].

R. v. Potma (1983), 31 C.R.(3d) 231, consd. [para. 30].

Duke v. R., [1972] S.C.R. 917, consd. [para. 30].

Re County of Strathcona No. 20 et al. and Maclab Enterprises Ltd. (1971), 20 D.L.R.(3d) 200, appld. [para. 31].

Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Delmar Chemical Ltd., [1965] S.C.R. 575, appld. [para. 31].

United States of America v. Sheppard (1976), 9 N.R. 215; 30 C.C.C.(2d) 424, appld. [para. 32].

Re Federal Republic of Germany and Rauca (1983), 4 C.C.C.(3d) 385, appld. [para. 36].

Re Global Communications Ltd. and Attorney-General of Canada (1983), 5 C.C.C.(3d) 346, appld. [para. 37].

Re Southam Inc. and R. (No. 1) (1983), 41 O.R.(2d) 113, appld. [para. 37].

Glucksman v. Henkel, United States Marshal (1911), 221 U.S. 508, consd. [para. 39].

Bingham v. Bradley, United States Marshal For the Northern District of Illinois (1916), 241 U.S. 511, consd. [para. 40].

Collins v. Loisel, United States Marshal For the Eastern District of Louisiana (1922), 259 U.S. 309, consd. [para. 41].

Collier, United States Marshal v. Vaccaro (1931), 51 F.2d 17, consd. [para. 42].

Jhirad v. Ferrandina (1975), 401 F.Supp. 1215, affd. (1976), 536 F.2d 478, cert. denied (1976), 429 U.S. 833; 97 S.Ct. 97; 50 L.Ed.2d 98, consd. [para. 43].

Simmons v. Braun (1980), 627 F.2d 635, consd. [para. 44].

Re Counhaye (1873), L.R. 8 Q.B. 410, consd. [para. 45].

R. v. Zossenheim (1903), 20 T.L.R. 121, consd. [para. 45].

R. v. Governor of Pentoville Prison; Ex parte Kirby, [1979] 2 All E.R. 1094, consd. [para. 47].

Re Campbell, [1935] N.Z.L.R. 352, consd. [para. 49].

Thompson v. Cheyenne Realty Ltd. (1974), 1 N.R. 273; 42 D.L.R.(3d) 733, appld. [para. 57].

Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 3 W.W.R. 676; 26 N.R. 364, appld. [para. 58].

R. v. Botting, [1966] 2 O.R. 121, refd to. [para. 59].

Re Kendall and R.; Re McCaffrey and R. (1982), 42 A.R. 183; 2 C.C.C.(3d) 224, appld. [para. 59].

Attorney General for Quebec v. Cohen (1979), 27 N.R. 344; 46 C.C.C.(2d) 473, appld. [para. 59].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1970, App. III, sect. 2(e) [para. 17].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sect. 1 [para. 36]; sect. 7 [para. 15]; sect. 11(d) [para. 14].

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 468(1)(a) [para. 27].

Extradition Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-21, sect. 3 [para. 25]; sect. 13, sect. 14, sect. 15, sect. 16 [para. 16]; sect. 19 [para. 59].

Extradition Treaty Between Canada and the United States of America (1956), Article 10(2) [para. 24].

United States Code, Title 18, c. 209 (Extradition) [para. 38].

Authors and Works Noticed:

LaForest, Extradition to and from Canada (2nd Ed. 1977), pp. 97 [para. 26]; 120 [para. 59].

Shearer, Extradition in International Law (1971), pp. 154-155 [para. 28].

Counsel:

Brian H. Greenspan, for the appellant;

A.M. Coomaraswamy, Q.C., for the respondent.

This case was heard on November 21 and 22, 1983, at Toronto, Ontario, before Howland, C.J.O., Lacourcière and Houlden, JJ.A., of the Ontario Supreme Court of Appeal.

Houlden, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal, which was released on January 27, 1984:

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 practice notes
  • United States of America et al. v. Yang, (2001) 149 O.A.C. 364 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • 2 Mayo 2001
    ...11]. R. v. Smith (A.L.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 11]. United States of America v. Smith (1984), 2 O.A.C. 1; 10 C.C.C.(3d) 540 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Bourgeon v. Canada (Attorney General), [2000] O.T.C. 326; 187 D.L.R.(4th) 542 (Sup. Ct.), disagreed......
  • Canada (Attorney General) v. Sosa,
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 29 Agosto 2011
    ...States of America v. Shephard (1977), 9 N.R. 215; 30 C.C.C.(2d) 424 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 6]. United States of America v. Smith (1984), 2 O.A.C. 1; 10 C.C.C.(3d) 540 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Argentina (Republic) v. Mellino, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 536; 76 N.R. 51; 80 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 6]. ......
  • United States of America v. Turenne, (2004) 187 Man.R.(2d) 45 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Manitoba Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • 21 Julio 2004
    ...the jurisdiction of an extradition judge. (See United States of America v. Smith (1983), 6 C.C.C.(3d) 419 (Ont. H.C.), p. 424; affd. (1984), 2 O.A.C. 1; 10 C.C.C.(3d) 540 (C.A.)." [75] The appellant argues that the extradition judge erred in applying the traditional " Shephard " test ( Unit......
  • United States of America v. Kerslake, (1996) 142 Sask.R. 112 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • 17 Abril 1996
    ...States of America v. Lépine, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 286; 163 N.R. 1; 69 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 27]. United States of America v. Smith (1984), 2 O.A.C. 1; 10 C.C.C.(3d) 540 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1984), 55 N.R. 395; 4 O.A.C. 239 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 28]. United States of America......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 cases
  • United States of America et al. v. Yang, (2001) 149 O.A.C. 364 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Court of Appeal (Ontario)
    • 2 Mayo 2001
    ...11]. R. v. Smith (A.L.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 11]. United States of America v. Smith (1984), 2 O.A.C. 1; 10 C.C.C.(3d) 540 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Bourgeon v. Canada (Attorney General), [2000] O.T.C. 326; 187 D.L.R.(4th) 542 (Sup. Ct.), disagreed......
  • Canada (Attorney General) v. Sosa,
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 29 Agosto 2011
    ...States of America v. Shephard (1977), 9 N.R. 215; 30 C.C.C.(2d) 424 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 6]. United States of America v. Smith (1984), 2 O.A.C. 1; 10 C.C.C.(3d) 540 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Argentina (Republic) v. Mellino, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 536; 76 N.R. 51; 80 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 6]. ......
  • United States of America v. Turenne, (2004) 187 Man.R.(2d) 45 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Manitoba Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
    • 21 Julio 2004
    ...the jurisdiction of an extradition judge. (See United States of America v. Smith (1983), 6 C.C.C.(3d) 419 (Ont. H.C.), p. 424; affd. (1984), 2 O.A.C. 1; 10 C.C.C.(3d) 540 (C.A.)." [75] The appellant argues that the extradition judge erred in applying the traditional " Shephard " test ( Unit......
  • United States of America v. Kerslake, (1996) 142 Sask.R. 112 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • 17 Abril 1996
    ...States of America v. Lépine, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 286; 163 N.R. 1; 69 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 27]. United States of America v. Smith (1984), 2 O.A.C. 1; 10 C.C.C.(3d) 540 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1984), 55 N.R. 395; 4 O.A.C. 239 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 28]. United States of America......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT