United States of America v. Stewart
The appeal was dismissed because this Court's prior decision in Yang held that s.32(1) and s.34 of the Extradition Act are constitutional, thereby deciding the issue against the appellant.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C40629
- Parties
- Respondent: United States of America; Appellant: Andrew Seymour Stewart
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 18 May 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Extradition / Appeal From Committal Order for Extradition (superior Court of Justice, Committal Order Dated July 3, 2003)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Extradition Act S.32(1), Extradition Act S.34, Constitutionality, Precedent (yang)
- 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
United States of America
Respondent
Andrew Seymour Stewart
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Extradition / Appeal From Committal Order for Extradition (superior Court of Justice, Committal Order Dated July 3, 2003)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether s.32(1) and s.34 of the Extradition Act are unconstitutional
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because this Court's prior decision in Yang held that s.32(1) and s.34 of the Extradition Act are constitutional, thereby deciding the issue against the appellant.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
United States of America v. Stewart Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2004-05-18 Docket numbers C40629 Judges Laskin, John Ivan; Feldman, Kathryn N.; Blair, Robert Ashley Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20040518 DOCKET: C40629 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Respondent) - and ANDREW SEYMOUR STEWART (Appellant) BEFORE: LASKIN, FELDMAN and BLAIR JJ.A. COUNSEL: Paul Slansky for the appellant Bradley Reitz for the respondent HEARD & ENDORSED: May 14, 2004 On appeal from the committal order for extradition of Justice John F. Hamilton of the Superior Court of Justice dated July 3, 2003. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant's sole ground of appeal is that s. 32(1) and s. 34 of the Extradition Act are unconstitutional. That issue was decided against the appellant's position by this court in Yang. [2] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.