Canada (Attorney General) v. K.T.

Canada (Attorney General) v. K.T.

Application to adduce evidence was denied because the majority of the proposed evidence was not relevant to the s.29(1) committal inquiry and, where relevant, would not realistically meet the high standard required to show the record of the case is so unreliable as to defeat committal; fragmentary foreign court materials and opinion evidence were excluded and evidence about children's wishes and enforcement events was not admissible for committal purposes; the discretionary route to admit evidence for the Minister was declined as inefficient and potentially misleading.

Citation
2018 BCSC 622
Parties
Applicant/requesting State: The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland; Respondent/person Sought: K.T.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Extradition / Committal Hearing Application to Adduce Evidence
Outcome
Application to adduce evidence in the extradition (committal) hearing denied
Legal Topics
Committal Hearing, Evidence Admissibility, Abuse of Process, Hague Convention, Child Abduction, Voice of the Child
Source Language
English
Extradition Law Criminal Law Family Law International Law Committal Hearing Evidence Admissibility Abuse of Process Hague Convention +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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland

Applicant/requesting State

K.T.

Respondent/person Sought

Procedural Posture

Extradition / Committal Hearing Application to Adduce Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed evidence adduced by person sought is admissible under s.32 of the Extradition Act
  2. 2 Whether proposed evidence is relevant to the committal test in s.29(1)(a)
  3. 3 Standard of reliability required for evidence adduced by person sought

Ratio Decidendi

Application to adduce evidence was denied because the majority of the proposed evidence was not relevant to the s.29(1) committal inquiry and, where relevant, would not realistically meet the high standard required to show the record of the case is so unreliable as to defeat committal; fragmentary foreign court materials and opinion evidence were excluded and evidence about children's wishes and enforcement events was not admissible for committal purposes; the discretionary route to admit evidence for the Minister was declined as inefficient and potentially misleading.

Court Disposition

Application to adduce evidence in the extradition (committal) hearing denied

Orders

  • Application to adduce evidence denied
  • Publication ban on any information identifying the two minors (pursuant to the Court's inherent jurisdiction)