United States v. Dhaliwal
The committal judge did not err because the authority to proceed complied with s.15(3)(c) of the Extradition Act, which does not require particulars of the alleged offences, as established in USA v. Kavaratzis.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2016 ONCA 154
- Parties
- Respondent: The Attorney General of Canada (on behalf of the United States of America); Appellant: Harinder Dhaliwal
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 24 February 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Extradition Committal Order Appeal / Appeal From Committal Order Under S.49 of the Extradition Act
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Committal Order, Particulars, Authority to Proceed, Extradition Act S.15(3)(c)
- 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
The Attorney General of Canada (on behalf of the United States of America)
Respondent
Harinder Dhaliwal
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Extradition Committal Order Appeal / Appeal From Committal Order Under S.49 of the Extradition Act
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the committal judge erred in refusing to order particulars of the conspiracy in the authority to proceed
- 2 Whether s.15(3)(c) of the Extradition Act requires the Minister to provide particulars of offences that under Canadian law correspond to the alleged conduct
Ratio Decidendi
The committal judge did not err because the authority to proceed complied with s.15(3)(c) of the Extradition Act, which does not require particulars of the alleged offences, as established in USA v. Kavaratzis.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
United States v. Dhaliwal Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2016-02-24 Neutral citation 2016 ONCA 154 Docket numbers C60916 Judges Sharpe, Robert J.; Benotto, Mary Lou; Huscroft, Grant Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: United States v. Dhaliwal, 2016 ONCA 154 DATE: 20160224 DOCKET: C60916 Sharpe, Benotto and Huscroft JJ.A. IN THE MATTER OF an appeal of a committal order pursuant to s. 49 of the Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18 BETWEEN The Attorney General of Canada (on behalf of the United States of America) Respondent and Harinder Dhaliwal Appellant Balwinder Sran and Joseph W. Irving, for the appellant Roy Lee, for the respondent Heard: February 24, 2016 On appeal from the committal order of Justice M. Code of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 23, 2015. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] We do not agree that the committal judge erred in refusing to order particulars of the conspiracy in the authority to proceed. The authority to proceed complied with s. 15 (3)(c) of the Extradition Act and as held by this court in USA v. Kavaratzis, [2004] OJN 173 (CA) at para. 25, that provision “does not require the Minister of Justice to provide particulars of the offences that under Canadian law correspond to the alleged conduct of the person sought.” [2] Appeal dismissed.