United States v. Barnes

United States v. Barnes Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2023-07-21 Neutral citation 2023 ONCA 492 Docket numbers COA-22-CR-0137 Judges Huscroft, Grant; Coroza, Steve A.; Monahan, Patrick J. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: United States v. Barnes, 2023 ONCA 492 DATE: 20230721 DOCKET: COA-22-CR-0137 Huscroft, Coroza and Monahan JJ.A. IN THE MATTER OF an application for judicial review pursuant to s. 57 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 Jaedyin Riquan Barnes Applicant C. Stephen White, for the applicant Adrienne Rice, for the respondent Heard: July 12, 2023 On application for judicial review of the surrender order of the Minister of Justice, dated September 1, 2022. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Minister of Justice (“Minister”) ordered the applicant surrendered for extradition to the United States to stand trial on charges of grand theft auto, vehicular homicide, and manslaughter while driving under the influence. The applicant seeks judicial review, arguing that the Minister’s decision was unreasonable because it contravened s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and because he failed to consider delaying the extradition. [2] The application for judicial review is dismissed for the reasons that follow. [3] The Minister’s decision to surrender for extradition is reviewed pursuant to the reasonableness standard, as this court explained in United States v. Hillis, 2021 ONCA 447, 156 O.R. (3d) 525, at paras. 83-88. [4] The applicant argues, first, that the Minister unreasonably concluded that he would not be discriminated against based on his race. We do not accept this argument. [5] The Minister agreed that the applicant’s race was relevant to his surrender decision and applied the test set out by this court in United States of Mexico v. Hurley (1997), 35 O.R. (3d) 481 (C.A.). [6] On the first prong of the Hurley test, the Minister found there was evidence of systemic racism against Black people in the United States. On the second prong, the Minister acknowledged the applicant’s concerns about discrimination and obtained information concerning a prior offence committed by the applicant in Florida, which resulted in a no-contest plea, as well as information about the Florida justice system provided by the Florida state prosecutor. The Minister concluded that the applicant failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he would be persecuted based on his race. His conclusion was based on his consideration of Florida state constitutional guarantees, statutory protections available to the applicant in Florida, and Florida’s initiatives to identify and redress disparate treatment on the basis of race and ethnicity. The Minister’s conclusion was amply supported by the record that was before him and is reasonable. [7] Second, the applicant argues that he requires considerable health care and that, although the Minister acknowledged this, he wrongly found that the applicant would receive the surgery and medical treatment he required, a finding that the applicant says was not supported by the evidence. [8] We do not agree. [9] As the Minister noted in his decision, the fact that a person sought for extradition has health problems does not, in itself, render surrender unjust or oppressive, or violate the principles of fundamental justice. Moreover, the Minister was entitled to rely on representations from the U.S. authorities concerning the applicant’s access to medical care: United States v. Levy, 2019 ONCA 915, 452 C.R.R. (2d) 1, at paras. 19-20. It was not necessary for the Minister to seek assurances from the prosecuting state that the applicant’s medical needs would be sufficiently addressed. The Minister considered the request for a postponement of the extradition on medical grounds and rejected it because treatment options were available to the applicant in the United States. [10] We are satisfied that it was reasonable for the Minister to find, on the record before him, that the applicant’s health could be managed with appropriate care that would be available in either pre-trial or post-conviction custody in Florida, and that the effect of surrender would not be unjust or oppressive. [11] In summary, the Minister’s decision is reasonable and entitled to deference. The applicant has not established any basis for this court to interfere with it. [12] The application for judicial review is dismissed. “Grant Huscroft J.A.” “S. Coroza J.A.” “P.J. Monahan J.A.”