United States of America v. Tollman, [2006] O.T.C. 803 (SC)

• Judge: Molloy, J.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: September 14, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: [2006] O.T.C. 803 (SC)

USA v. Tollman, [2006] O.T.C. 803 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] O.T.C. TBEd. SE.054

The United States of America (requesting state/respondent) v. Gavin Tollman (person sought/applicant)

(Court File No. E-1/05)

Indexed As: United States of America v. Tollman

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Molloy, J.

September 14, 2006.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Civil Rights - Topic 660.4

Liberty - Limitations on - Extradition - See paragraphs 120 to 149.

Extradition - Topic 22

General - Bars to extradition - Abuse of process - See paragraphs 120 to 149.

Extradition - Topic 3904

Practice - Appeals - Stay of proceedings (incl. stay of execution) - See paragraphs 120 to 149.

Cases Noticed:

United States of America v. Cobb et al., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 587; 267 N.R. 203; 145 O.A.C. 3; 152 C.C.C.(3d) 270; 2001 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 13].

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; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 7; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 651, refd to. [para. 15].

Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1964] A.C. 1254 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 15].

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. 18].

United States of America et al. v. Yang (2001), 149 O.A.C. 364; 56 O.R.(3d) 52; 157 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. et al. v. Larosa (N.) (2002), 163 O.A.C. 108; 166 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Brixton Prison (Governor), [1962] 3 All E.R. 641 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, refd to. [para. 24].

Enterprises Sibeca Inc. v. Frelighsburg (Municipalité), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 304; 325 N.R. 345; 243 D.L.R.(4th) 513, refd to. [para. 24].

Moore v. Minister of Manpower and Immigration, [1968] S.C.R. 839; 69 D.L.R.(2d) 273, refd to. [para. 28].

Kindler v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1985), 47 C.R.(3d) 225 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Halm v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1996] 1 F.C. 547; 104 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Bennett (A.P.), [1993] All E.R. 138; 155 N.R. 372 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Horseferry Road Magistrates Court, Ex parte Bennett - see R. v. Bennett (A.P.).

Bembenek v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1991), 69 C.C.C.(3d) 34 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 123].

United States of America v. Quintin et al., [2000] O.T.C. 170 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194; 9 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 133].

Quebec (Procureur général) v. Laroche et al., [2002] 3 S.C.R. 708; 295 N.R. 291; 169 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 133].

Magder (Paul) Furs Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (1991), 52 O.A.C. 151; 6 O.R.(3d) 188; 85 D.L.R.(4th) 694 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 133].

R. v. Litchfield, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333; 161 N.R. 161; 145 A.R. 321; 55 W.A.C. 321; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 133].

R. v. Domm (G.) (1996), 95 O.A.C. 262; 31 O.R.(3d) 540; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 134].

R. v. Reed (J.) (1994), 49 B.C.A.C. 180; 80 W.A.C. 180; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 134].

R. v. Araujo (A.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992; 262 N.R. 346; 143 B.C.A.C. 257; 235 W.A.C. 257; 149 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 135].

United States of America v. Friedland, [1996] O.J. No. 4399 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 135].

Chitel v. Rothbart (1982), 39 O.R.(2d) 513 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 135].

Counsel:

Thomas Lemon and Nancy Dennison, for the respondent;

Michael Code and David Martin, for the applicant.

This application was heard on June 5-9 and 12, 2006, before Molloy, J., of the Ontario Superior Court, who released the following decision on September 14, 2006.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.