Kitakufe v. Canada
The Minister did not err because an increase in parole ineligibility imposed by the Parole Commission relates to administration of the sentence and not to prosecution for an uncharged offence, therefore it does not violate Article 12 of the Extradition Treaty or the Charter, and the Minister may rely on the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C29277
- Parties
- Applicant: John Kitakufe; Respondent: Minister of Justice for Canada
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 6 April 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Judicial Review Pursuant to Section 25.2 of the Extradition Act / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Minister of Justice Decision Dated March 9, 1998
- Outcome
- Application for judicial review dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Specialty Rule, Parole Ineligibility, Charter Challenge, Ministerial Discretion, Surrender Order
- 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
John Kitakufe
Applicant
Minister of Justice for Canada
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review Pursuant to Section 25.2 of the Extradition Act / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Minister of Justice Decision Dated March 9, 1998
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Minister erred by refusing to seek assurance from the United States that the applicant's parole ineligibility would not be increased because of a failure to appear
- 2 Whether any increase in parole ineligibility would violate the specialty rule in Article 12 of the Extradition Treaty between Canada and the United States
- 3 Whether any increase in parole ineligibility would violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Ratio Decidendi
The Minister did not err because an increase in parole ineligibility imposed by the Parole Commission relates to administration of the sentence and not to prosecution for an uncharged offence, therefore it does not violate Article 12 of the Extradition Treaty or the Charter, and the Minister may rely on the requesting state's good faith; refusal to seek the requested assurance and omission from the surrender order were not reviewable errors.
Court Disposition
Application for judicial review dismissed
Orders
- Application for judicial review dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Kitakufe v. Canada Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 1999-04-06 Docket numbers C29277 Judges Osborne, Coulter Arthur Anthony; Laskin, John Ivan; Borins, Stephen Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 19990406 DOCKET: C29277 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: IN THE MATTER OF An Application for Judicial Review Pursuant to Section 25.2 of the Extradition Act, R.S.C. c. 3-23 JOHN KITAKUFE (Applicant) and MINISTER OF JUSTICE FOR CANADA (Respondent) BEFORE: OSBORNE, LASKIN AND BORINS JJ.A. COUNSEL: Andrew Matheson For the appellant Morris Pistyner For the respondent HEARD: March 26, 1999 On appeal from the decision of the Minister of Justice dated March 9, 1998. ENDORSEMENT [1] The applicant submits that the Minister erred in law in refusing to seek assurance from the United States that his parole ineligibility will not be increased because he failed to appear at his sentencing hearing. The applicant argues that such increased parole ineligibility violates the rule of specialty in Article 12 of the Extradition Treaty between Canada and the United States and also violates the Charter. We disagree. [2] The Minister correctly concluded that the decision of the Parole Commission on whether to increase the applicant’s parole ineligibility relates to the administration of the applicant’s sentence. The applicant will be sentenced for the fraud offences for which he is ordered surrendered and not for the offence of failing to appear with which he has not been charged. The decision of the Parole Commission will affect only the amount of court ordered punishment that must be served in custody. Any increase in parole ineligibility of between six and twelve months, which may be imposed by the Commission, will therefore not violate Article 12 of the Treaty, nor will it violate our Charter. This is neither fundamentally unacceptable to Canadian society, nor will it shock the conscience of a Canadian court. Accordingly, the Minister did not commit any reviewable error in refusing to seek the assurance sought by the applicant. [3] We are also of the view that the Minister did not err by failing to include in the order of surrender that the applicant is not extradited for the offence of failing to appear. The Minister is entitled to rely on the good faith of the requesting state in sentencing the applicant only for the offences in the surrender order. [4] Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed.