Slovenia v. Soba

Slovenia v. Soba Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2011-03-15 Neutral citation 2011 ONCA 206 Docket numbers C52023 Judges Laskin, John Ivan; Feldman, Kathryn N.; Armstrong, Robert Patrick Subject Civil Decision Content CITATION: Slovenia v. Soba, 2011 ONCA 206 DATE: 20110315 DOCKET: C52023 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Laskin, Feldman and Armstrong JJ.A. BETWEEN The Republic of Slovenia and Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Respondent and Bostjan Soba Applicant John Norris and Brydie Bethell, for the applicant Richard Kramer, for the respondent Heard and released orally: February 17, 2011 An application for judicial review of the decision of the Minister of Justice dated July 16, 2009. ENDORSEMENT [1] The applicant seeks judicial review of the Minister’s decision to extradite him to the Republic of Slovenia. In oral argument the applicant focused on two grounds to challenge the decision of the Minister. [2] The first is that the Minister denied the applicant natural justice by rejecting supporting submissions of the Helsinki Monitor Organization. The Minister did so on the ground that he doubted the institution’s legitimacy and on the ground of its association with the applicant. No notice of these grounds was given to the applicant ahead of time and therefore he had no opportunity to respond to them. [3] We would not give effect to this ground of judicial review for two reasons. First, the applicant, in his several submissions to the Minister, did not disclose and explain his association with the Helsinki Monitor Organization in order to alert the Minister to the issue. Second, the applicant could have asked the Minister for a reconsideration of the case based on this issue, and he did not do so. [4] The applicant’s second ground is based on the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Németh v. Canada, 2010 SCC 56, which came out after the Minister’s decision and which the applicant says changed the law. In particular, he says that in interpreting s. 44(1)(b) of the Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18, the Supreme Court has broadened the type of prejudice that is relevant and has lowered the standard of proof of persecution from a balance of probabilities to a mere risk of persecution. [5] The Crown in response agrees that the Németh case did change the law, but only as it applies to certified convention refugees and not to refugee applicants. For them, the process is the one that the Minister followed in addressing the issue of potential prejudice by persecution in the requesting state. [6] The Minister checked with the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration (CIC) to investigate and advise on the issue. In his reasons the Minister referred to the fact that the CIC found that the judicial system in Slovenia is a fair one and that there was no suggestion of any concern of the potential for persecution. We accept the submission of the Crown. [7] In the result, the application for judicial review is dismissed. Signed: “John Laskin J.A.” “K. Feldman J.A.” “Robert P. Armstrong J.A.”