United States of America v. Kubica

United States of America v. Kubica

The judge found the proffered May 5, 2014 felony complaint and May 14, 2014 affidavit were reliable as foundational documents but not sufficiently relevant under s.32(1)(c) to rebut the presumptive reliability of the certified ROC and FSROC or to show the evidence essential to committal was so unreliable as to be disregarded; accordingly the application to adduce those documents was refused, although the documents might bear on delay issues for the Minister later.

Citation
2018 BCSC 218
Parties
Applicant/requesting State: The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States of America; Respondent/person Sought: Anton Kubica also known as Anton Micheal Kubica
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Extradition / Committal Hearing (application to Adduce Evidence)
Outcome
Application to adduce the May 5, 2014 felony complaint and May 14, 2014 Declaration in Support of Arrest Warrant under s.32(1)(c) denied; ROC and FSROC remain presumptively admissible and reliable; no committal determination on these documents in this ruling
Legal Topics
Committal Under S.29(1) of the Extradition Act, Admissibility Under S.32(1)(c), Reliability and Relevance of Certified Roc/fsroc, Delay and Cold Case Review, Publication Ban Under S.26
Source Language
English
Extradition Law Criminal Law Evidence Law Committal Under S.29(1) of the Extradition Act Admissibility Under S.32(1)(c) Reliability and Relevance of Certified Roc/fsroc Delay and Cold Case Review Publication Ban Under S.26

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

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

Applicant/requesting State

Anton Kubica also known as Anton Micheal Kubica

Respondent/person Sought

Procedural Posture

Extradition / Committal Hearing (application to Adduce Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent may adduce a 2014 felony complaint and affidavit under s.32(1)(c)
  2. 2 Whether the 2014 documents rebut the presumptive reliability of the certified Record of the Case and First Supplemental ROC
  3. 3 Whether delay or a cold case review renders the requesting state's evidence so unreliable that committal should be refused

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found the proffered May 5, 2014 felony complaint and May 14, 2014 affidavit were reliable as foundational documents but not sufficiently relevant under s.32(1)(c) to rebut the presumptive reliability of the certified ROC and FSROC or to show the evidence essential to committal was so unreliable as to be disregarded; accordingly the application to adduce those documents was refused, although the documents might bear on delay issues for the Minister later.

Court Disposition

Application to adduce the May 5, 2014 felony complaint and May 14, 2014 Declaration in Support of Arrest Warrant under s.32(1)(c) denied; ROC and FSROC remain presumptively admissible and reliable; no committal determination on these documents in this ruling

Orders

  • Application to adduce the May 5, 2014 felony complaint and May 14, 2014 Declaration in Support of Arrest Warrant under s.32(1)(c) refused
  • Publication ban under s.26 of the Extradition Act to continue in effect