United States of America v. Scott
The constitutionality challenge to the Extradition Act was foreclosed by precedent and the Minister did not err in surrendering the appellant because the Minister's brief reasons were adequate given the insubstantial nature of the appellant's allegations; appeal and judicial review dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C37837, C37838
- Parties
- Respondent: United States of America; Respondent: The Minister of Justice for Canada; Appellant: Lynne Patricia Scott a.k.a. Lynn Patricia Schaefer
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 8 January 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Extradition/criminal / Appeal From Committal; Application for Judicial Review of Surrender Order
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; application for judicial review dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Extradition, Surrender, Judicial Review, Constitutionality of Extradition Act, Ministerial Reasons, Committal 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
United States of America
Respondent
The Minister of Justice for Canada
Respondent
Lynne Patricia Scott a.k.a. Lynn Patricia Schaefer
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Extradition/criminal / Appeal From Committal; Application for Judicial Review of Surrender Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the new Extradition Act is constitutional
- 2 Whether the Minister erred in surrendering the appellant on grounds of unfairness or oppression
- 3 Whether the Minister's reasons for surrender were adequate
Ratio Decidendi
The constitutionality challenge to the Extradition Act was foreclosed by precedent and the Minister did not err in surrendering the appellant because the Minister's brief reasons were adequate given the insubstantial nature of the appellant's allegations; appeal and judicial review dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; application for judicial review dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal from committal order dismissed.
- Application for judicial review of the surrender order dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
United States of America v. Scott Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2004-01-08 Docket numbers C37837, C37838 Judges Laskin, John Ivan; Moldaver, Michael James; Goudge, Stephen Thomas Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20040108 DOCKET: C37837 & C37838 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE FOR CANADA (Respondents) - and - LYNNE PATRICIA SCOTT a.k.a. LYNN PATRICIA SCHAEFER (Applicant) (Appellant) BEFORE: LASKIN, MOLDAVER and GOUDGE JJ.A. COUNSEL: Paul Slansky for the appellant D.D. Graham Reynolds and Chris DeSa for the respondents HEARD: December 16, 2003 RELEASED ORALLY: December 16, 2003 On appeal from the committal order of Justice H. David P. Logan of the Superior Court of Justice dated March 6, 2001, and the surrender order of the Honourable Anne McLellan dated November 8, 2001. ENDORSEMENT [1] On her appeal from the order of the extradition judge committing her for surrender, the appellant raises only the constitutionality of the new Extradition Act. This issue was decided adversely to her by this court in United States of America v. Yang (2001), 157 C.C.C. (3d) 225. The appeal is therefore dismissed. [2] On the application for judicial review, the applicant contends that the Minister erred in surrendering her because to do so would be unfair and oppressive. Linked to this contention, the applicant complains of the inadequacy of the Minister's reasons. [3] In our view, nothing in the record sustains the applicant's bald assertions which she argues should have led the Minister to refuse surrender. To the extent any of the applicant's allegations had any substance, the Minister gave brief, but appropriate reasons for rejecting them. In our view, the Minister's reasons were adequate having regard to the nature of the complaints and the very limited material to support them. [4] The application for judicial review is dismissed. "John Laskin J.A." "M. Moldaver J.A." "S. T. Goudge J.A."