USA v. Fraser
The application for further disclosure was dismissed and the court declined to clarify the prior decision because the request sought a hypothetical answer without a proper application, supporting law or evidence and no application to reopen had been made.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2015 BCSC 145
- Parties
- Requesting State: Attorney General on behalf of the United States of America; Person Sought: Shane Donald Fraser; Person Sought: Todd Ian Ferguson; Person Sought: Daniel James Joinson; Person Sought: Darrell Joseph Romano; Person Sought: Robert Frank Romano; Person Sought: Ivan Djuracic; Person Sought: Aaron Randolph Anderson; Person Sought: Jamie Daniel Nenasheff
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 30 January 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Extradition / Application for Disclosure Clarification (post Judgment)
- Outcome
- Application for Disclosure dismissed; request for clarification declined.
- Legal Topics
- Disclosure, Clarification of Judgment, Reopening Applications, Interception of Communications, Role of Counsel
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Attorney General on behalf of the United States of America
Requesting State
Shane Donald Fraser
Person Sought
Todd Ian Ferguson
Person Sought
Daniel James Joinson
Person Sought
Darrell Joseph Romano
Person Sought
Robert Frank Romano
Person Sought
Ivan Djuracic
Person Sought
Aaron Randolph Anderson
Person Sought
Jamie Daniel Nenasheff
Person Sought
Procedural Posture
Extradition / Application for Disclosure Clarification (post Judgment)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the prior dismissal precludes adducing further evidence or clarifying the remedy sought
- 2 Whether admissible evidence of interception/collection/storage of judicial information or counsel-related data would interfere with judicial independence or the role of counsel and require a remedy
Ratio Decidendi
The application for further disclosure was dismissed and the court declined to clarify the prior decision because the request sought a hypothetical answer without a proper application, supporting law or evidence and no application to reopen had been made.
Court Disposition
Application for Disclosure dismissed; request for clarification declined.
Orders
- Application for Disclosure dismissed
- Request for clarification declined
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
2015 BCSC 145 USA v. Fraser IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: USA v. Fraser, 2015 BCSC 145 Date: 20150130 Docket: 26331 Registry: Vancouver In the Matter of the Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18, as amended And in the Matter of the Attorney General on behalf of the United States of America and Shane Donald Fraser, Todd Ian Ferguson, Daniel James Joinson, Darrell Joseph Romano, Robert Frank Romano, Ivan Djuracic, Aaron Randolph Anderson and Jamie Daniel Nenasheff Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Watchuk Reasons for Judgment Re: Application for Disclosure Clarification Counsel for the Attorney General of Canada: A. Lord K. Swift Counsel for the Person Sought Djuracic: P. Edelmann Place and Dates of Written Request and Appearance: Vancouver, B.C. July 14, 2014 November 18, 2014 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. January 30, 2015 [1] In Reasons for Judgment reported at 2014 BCSC 1132, I dismissed the Applications of Mr. Djuracic and Mr. Fraser for further disclosure in this extradition matter. [2] Mr. Djuracic, by way of email, seeks clarification as follows: I wish to clarify whether the decision precludes Mr. Djuracic from adducing any further evidence to support the allegations or from clarifying the remedy sought. In particular, I would seek clarification of the findings starting at paragraph 159. Is this a finding that even if there were admissible and compelling evidence of interception, collection and/or storage of judicial information or data related to counsel (the first allegation set out in paragraph 90 of the reasons), that it would not interfere with either the independence of the judiciary or the role of counsel, and therefore a remedy would not be needed? [3] The Requesting State takes no position. [4] The Application for Disclosure was dismissed. No application to reopen has been received. Mr. Djuracic's request for clarification was not accompanied by law or evidence. [5] Mr. Djuracic's question cannot be answered in a vacuum and I decline to do so. "The Honourable Madam Justice Watchuk"