United States of America v. Kwok

United States of America v. Kwok

The Court held that the extradition judge correctly denied disclosure because extradition disclosure is limited to material relied on for a prima facie case; s.6(1) mobility rights are engaged at the Ministerial surrender stage not the committal stage; s.9(3) does not broaden the committal hearing into a full Charter inquiry; the Minister properly considered s.6(1) and did not err in refusing further disclosure or in relying on prosecutorial discretion and advice of authorized representatives; accordingly both the committal and surrender orders stand.

Citation
C24869, C25922
Parties
Requesting State: United States of America; Fugitive: Paul Yick Wai Kwok
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 August 1998
Procedural Posture
Extradition / Appeal and Judicial Review
Outcome
Appeal and judicial review dismissed; committal and surrender orders upheld
Legal Topics
Charter S.6 Mobility Rights, Disclosure Obligations in Extradition, Prosecutorial Discretion, Section 9(3) Jurisdiction of Extradition Judge, Ministerial Surrender Decision
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Extradition Constitutional Law Charter S.6 Mobility Rights Disclosure Obligations in Extradition Prosecutorial Discretion Section 9(3) Jurisdiction of Extradition Judge Ministerial Surrender Decision

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

United States of America

Requesting State

Paul Yick Wai Kwok

Fugitive

Procedural Posture

Extradition / Appeal and Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extradition judge erred in refusing disclosure of Canadian investigative material
  2. 2 Whether s.9(3) of the Extradition Act confers on the extradition judge jurisdiction to determine s.6(1) Charter mobility claims at the committal stage
  3. 3 Whether the Minister erred in refusing disclosure prior to surrender and improperly assessed s.6(1) mobility rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the extradition judge correctly denied disclosure because extradition disclosure is limited to material relied on for a prima facie case; s.6(1) mobility rights are engaged at the Ministerial surrender stage not the committal stage; s.9(3) does not broaden the committal hearing into a full Charter inquiry; the Minister properly considered s.6(1) and did not err in refusing further disclosure or in relying on prosecutorial discretion and advice of authorized representatives; accordingly both the committal and surrender orders stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal and judicial review dismissed; committal and surrender orders upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Application for judicial review dismissed