U.S.A. v. Lim

U.S.A. v. Lim

The applications for a voir dire and for renewed disclosure are dismissed because the applicant failed to establish the requisite 'air of reality' that the 2014 interview or subsequent evidence would render the extradition proceedings unfair, and because binding authority (Pavlicevic and related jurisprudence) bars re‑litigation of Charter issues arising from a prior guilty plea; alternatively, even absent that bar, no evidentiary basis was shown to justify a voir dire or disclosure.

Citation
2021 BCSC 1367
Parties
Requesting State: The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States of America; Applicant/person Sought: Tenny Guon Lim
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Extradition / Voir Dire and Renewed Disclosure Applications at Committal Stage
Outcome
Voir dire application and renewed disclosure application dismissed
Legal Topics
Charter S.7, Charter S.9, Charter S.10, Charter S.11(d), Charter S.24, Voice Identification Evidence, Disclosure, Judicial Comity, Committal Test
Source Language
English
Extradition Law Constitutional Law Criminal Law Evidence Law Charter S.7 Charter S.9 Charter S.10 Charter S.11(d) +5 more

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States of America

Requesting State

Tenny Guon Lim

Applicant/person Sought

Procedural Posture

Extradition / Voir Dire and Renewed Disclosure Applications at Committal Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a voir dire is required to assess admissibility of voice identification stemming from a 2014 Canadian interview
  2. 2 Whether disclosure of Canadian‑gathered and U.S.‑gathered materials should be ordered
  3. 3 Whether prior guilty plea bars Charter challenges in extradition proceedings (judicial comity/Pavlicevic)

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for a voir dire and for renewed disclosure are dismissed because the applicant failed to establish the requisite 'air of reality' that the 2014 interview or subsequent evidence would render the extradition proceedings unfair, and because binding authority (Pavlicevic and related jurisprudence) bars re‑litigation of Charter issues arising from a prior guilty plea; alternatively, even absent that bar, no evidentiary basis was shown to justify a voir dire or disclosure.

Court Disposition

Voir dire application and renewed disclosure application dismissed

Orders

  • Voir dire application dismissed.
  • Renewed application for disclosure dismissed.