United States of America v. Catano

United States of America v. Catano

The court upheld the Minister's decision because the Minister considered the new medical evidence, found the prior assurances from U.S. authorities sufficiently persuasive to allay concerns, and exercised his discretion reasonably; therefore there was no basis to set aside the decision and deference was warranted.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2007 ONCA 838
Parties
Applicant: Luis Catano; Respondent: The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States of America
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Judicial Review of Minister of Justice Decision Denying Request for Refusal to Surrender
Outcome
Application dismissed; Minister's decision upheld
Legal Topics
Surrender, Refusal to Surrender, Medical Care in Custody, Shock the Conscience, Ministerial Discretion, Standard of Review
Source Language
en
Extradition Criminal Law Administrative Law International Law Surrender Refusal to Surrender Medical Care in Custody Shock the Conscience +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luis Catano

Applicant

The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States of America

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application for Judicial Review of Minister of Justice Decision Denying Request for Refusal to Surrender

  1. 1 Whether surrender would 'shock the conscience' because of risk of blindness from inadequate medical care in U.S. custody
  2. 2 Whether the Minister reasonably considered new medical evidence and properly exercised discretion in light of assurances from U.S. authorities
  3. 3 What degree of deference is owed to the Minister's decision

Ratio Decidendi

The court upheld the Minister's decision because the Minister considered the new medical evidence, found the prior assurances from U.S. authorities sufficiently persuasive to allay concerns, and exercised his discretion reasonably; therefore there was no basis to set aside the decision and deference was warranted.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; Minister's decision upheld

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed; Minister of Justice's decision dated September 28, 2006 denying refusal to surrender is upheld