Italy v. Andriano
The Minister's decision to refuse adjournment and to find no error in surrendering the applicant was within ministerial discretion; the Minister considered the submissions regarding in absentia proceedings and pending ECHR proceedings and made no reviewable error, so the judicial review application must be dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2011 ONCA 44
- Parties
- Respondent: Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the Republic of Italy; Applicant: Albano Andriano
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 19 January 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Extradition / Application for Judicial Review of the Minister of Justice's Decision to Surrender the Applicant for Extradition (court of Appeal)
- Outcome
- Application for judicial review dismissed; request for 60-day adjournment denied.
- Legal Topics
- Surrender, In Absentia Proceedings, European Court of Human Rights, Ministerial Discretion, Adjournment
- Source Language
- en
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 of Canada on behalf of the Republic of Italy
Respondent
Albano Andriano
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Extradition / Application for Judicial Review of the Minister of Justice's Decision to Surrender the Applicant for Extradition (court of Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the European Court of Human Rights had given the equivalent of leave to appeal or whether there was a reasonable prospect of a decision within 60 days
- 2 Whether Italy's prosecution in absentia after a formal extradition request demonstrated disrespect for the Canadian extradition process sufficient to require intervention
- 3 Whether the Minister erred by failing to adjourn proceedings or seek assurances because of pending ECHR proceedings
Ratio Decidendi
The Minister's decision to refuse adjournment and to find no error in surrendering the applicant was within ministerial discretion; the Minister considered the submissions regarding in absentia proceedings and pending ECHR proceedings and made no reviewable error, so the judicial review application must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application for judicial review dismissed; request for 60-day adjournment denied.
Orders
- Application for judicial review dismissed.
- Request for a 60-day adjournment denied.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Italy v. Andriano Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2011-01-19 Neutral citation 2011 ONCA 44 Docket numbers C52481 Judges MacPherson, James C.; Sharpe, Robert J.; Juriansz, Russell G. Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: Italy v. Andriano, 2011 ONCA 44 DATE: 20110119 DOCKET: C52481 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO MacPherson, Sharpe and Juriansz JJ.A. BETWEEN The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the Republic of Italy Respondent and Albano Andriano Applicant Alan D. Gold, for the applicant Nancy Dennison, for the respondent Heard & released orally: January 14, 2011 Application for judicial review of the decision of the Minister of Justice to surrender the applicant for extradition. ENDORSEMENT [1] We are not satisfied that the European Court of Human Rights has given the equivalent of “leave to appeal” or that there is any reasonable prospect that there will a decision of that court within 60 days. Accordingly, the appellant’s request for a 60-day adjournment is dismissed. [2] With respect to the merits, we dismiss the application for judicial review. The issue of whether Italy showed disrespect for the Canadian extradition process by proceeding against the applicant in absentia after making a formal extradition request fell squarely within the discretion of the Minister. The Minister did consider and reject that contention and we are not persuaded that he made any error or omission that would justify this court’s intervention. [3] Nor do we accept the submission that the Minister erred by failing to consider adequately or to adjourn the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had filed proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights or to seek assurances regarding the consequences to the applicant of the potential outcome of that decision. [4] Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed. “J.C. MacPherson J.A.” “Robert J. Sharpe J.A.” “R.G. Juriansz J.A.”