United States of America v. Mendez
Presence under s.70(1) of the Extradition Act includes linguistic presence; because the proceedings were not interpreted for the person sought (a concession by respondents), the committal order was set aside and a new committal hearing ordered.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2009 ONCA 601
- Parties
- Respondent: The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of The United States of America; Applicant: Jesus Chavira Mendez a.k.a. Cristobal Perez Otero a.k.a. Chewie
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 31 July 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Extradition (criminal) / Appeal From Committal for Extradition (committal by Superior Court Justice on January 24, 2007)
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; committal order set aside; new committal hearing ordered.
- Legal Topics
- Presence Requirement, Right to Interpretation, Committal for Extradition, Extradition Act S.70(1)
- 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
Jesus Chavira Mendez a.k.a. Cristobal Perez Otero a.k.a. Chewie
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Extradition (criminal) / Appeal From Committal for Extradition (committal by Superior Court Justice on January 24, 2007)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether s.70(1) of the Extradition Act requires linguistic presence (interpretation) for consent to committal given before a judge
- 2 Whether failure to provide interpretation vitiates the committal order
Ratio Decidendi
Presence under s.70(1) of the Extradition Act includes linguistic presence; because the proceedings were not interpreted for the person sought (a concession by respondents), the committal order was set aside and a new committal hearing ordered.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; committal order set aside; new committal hearing ordered.
Orders
- Appeal allowed from the committal order
- Committal order set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
United States of America v. Mendez Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2009-07-31 Neutral citation 2009 ONCA 601 Docket numbers C49393 Judges Simmons, Janet M.; Rouleau, Paul S.; Watt, David Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: United States of America v. Mendez, 2009 ONCA 601 DATE: 20090731 DOCKET: C49393 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Simmons, Rouleau and Watt JJ.A. BETWEEN: The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of The United States of America Respondents And Jesus Chavira Mendez a.k.a. Cristobal Perez Otero a.k.a. Chewie Applicant Leslie Maunder for the applicant Richard Kramer for the respondents Heard and released orally: July 24, 2009 On appeal from committal for extradition by Justice Frank Marrocco of the Superior Court of Justice, dated January 24, 2007. ENDORSEMENT [1] Under s. 70(1) of the Extradition Act, S.C. 1999 c. 18, consent to committal is to be given in writing and before a judge thus requiring the presence of the person sought. Presence includes linguistic presence. Counsel for the extradition partner concedes that the person sought was not linguistically present because the proceedings were not interpreted for him. [2] In these circumstances, we allow the appeal from the committal order, set it aside and order a new committal hearing. Signed: “Janet Simmons J.A.” “Paul Rouleau J.A.” “David Watt J.A.”