U.S.A. v. Robertson

U.S.A. v. Robertson

The court admitted the Canadian-gathered evidence in the ROC; applying the Ferras/Anekwu framework and limited weighing, the evidence did not support a reasonable inference that the respondent was an operating mind or had the subjective awareness necessary for attempted fraud because there was no link to victims or control over accounts, but the evidence was sufficient to support committal for the strict liability offence of unlawful/deceptive telemarketing under s.52.1(3) of the Competition Act, therefore committal granted for unlawful telemarketing and refused for attempted fraud.

Citation
2012 BCSC 1800
Parties
Applicant / Requesting State: The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States of America; Respondent / Person Sought: William Robertson
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Extradition (committal) / Committal Hearing (extradition Hearing Pursuant to Extradition Act)
Outcome
Committal order granted for unlawful telemarketing (Competition Act s.52.1(3)); committal for attempted fraud (Criminal Code s.380) denied
Legal Topics
Attempted Fraud, Deceptive Telemarketing, Committal Threshold, Admissibility of Canadian Gathered Evidence, Double Criminality, Limited Weighing of Evidence
Source Language
English
Extradition Law Criminal Law Competition Law Evidence Law Attempted Fraud Deceptive Telemarketing Committal Threshold Admissibility of Canadian Gathered Evidence +2 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 7 Authorities cited 18 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

William Robertson

Respondent / Person Sought

Procedural Posture

Extradition (committal) / Committal Hearing (extradition Hearing Pursuant to Extradition Act)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Canadian-gathered evidence in the ROC was admissible under the Extradition Act and Canadian law
  2. 2 Whether the admissible evidence established a prima facie case of attempted fraud against the respondent
  3. 3 Whether the admissible evidence established a prima facie case of unlawful/deceptive telemarketing contrary to s.52.1 of the Competition Act

Ratio Decidendi

The court admitted the Canadian-gathered evidence in the ROC; applying the Ferras/Anekwu framework and limited weighing, the evidence did not support a reasonable inference that the respondent was an operating mind or had the subjective awareness necessary for attempted fraud because there was no link to victims or control over accounts, but the evidence was sufficient to support committal for the strict liability offence of unlawful/deceptive telemarketing under s.52.1(3) of the Competition Act, therefore committal granted for unlawful telemarketing and refused for attempted fraud.

Court Disposition

Committal order granted for unlawful telemarketing (Competition Act s.52.1(3)); committal for attempted fraud (Criminal Code s.380) denied

Orders

  • Order committing William Robertson into custody to await surrender to the United States of America for the offence of unlawful/deceptive telemarketing contrary to s.52.1(3) of the Competition Act pursuant to s.29(1)(a) of the Extradition Act
  • Application for committal with respect to attempted fraud (Criminal Code s.380) dismissed