Canada (Attorney General) v. Zeldin

Canada (Attorney General) v. Zeldin Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2010-10-04 Neutral citation 2010 ONCA 636 Docket numbers C51709 Judges Doherty, David H.; Moldaver, Michael James; Cronk, Eleanore Ann Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: Canada (Attorney General) v. Zeldin, 2010 ONCA 636 DATE: 20101004 DOCKET: C51709 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Doherty, Moldaver and Cronk JJ.A. BETWEEN The Minister of Justice, the Attorney General of Canada and the United States of America Respondents and Steven Zeldin (a.k.a. Zeldin Stephen) Applicant John Norris and Brydie Bethell, for the applicant Jeffrey G. Johnston, for the respondent, the Minister of Justice Heard and orally released: September 22, 2010 An application for judicial review of the decision of the Minister of Justice dated February 18, 2010, ordering the applicant’s surrender to the United States of America. ENDORSEMENT [1] The applicant seeks judicial review of the Minister’s decision ordering him surrendered to the United States to face trial on fraud charges in Florida. It is alleged that the applicant fraudulently deprived investors of some $2,000,000. He consented to his committal for surrender. [2] The applicant resisted surrender on the basis that he has significant potentially life threatening health problems which would not be adequately addressed and treated in the Florida prison system. Alternatively, the applicant argued that he should not be surrendered unless the Minister had satisfied himself that there would be facilities within the Florida corrections system that would adequately address the applicant’s specific needs. By way of a further alternative, the applicant argued that the Minister should not order surrender without obtaining formal assurances from the United States authorities that the applicant’s specific health needs would be adequately addressed in the penal system. [3] The Minister ordered surrender, concluding that: · there was no information before him from the applicant that the applicant would not receive appropriate care for his health problems; · the information provided to the Minister from the American authorities indicated to the Minister that there were reasonable measures in place to address medical problems like those allegedly experienced by the applicant; · it would be unreasonable to demand from the American authorities that they provide a detailed description or plan as to the means that would be available within their prison system to address the applicant’s specific, particularized medical issues; · the United States as a “trusted Treaty partner” with a “fundamentally fair” justice system could be relied on to address the applicant’s medical issues as they arose on a reasonable basis; and · as there was no reason to doubt that the American authorities would address the applicant’s medical problems in a reasonable manner, it would be inappropriate for the Minister to demand assurances as a precondition to surrender. [4] We would dismiss this application. To succeed, the applicant must demonstrate that the Minister acted unreasonably in exercising his discretion under s. 44(1)(a) of the Extradition Act, and in particular, in concluding that it would not be oppressive or unjust to surrender the applicant in all of the circumstances. While s. 7 of the Charter is also raised by the applicant, the s. 7 analysis comes down to essentially the same inquiry as described above. Indeed, there was no reference to s. 7 in argument. [5] The Minister considered the information made available to him. In our view, it was not unreasonable for him to rely on information provided by the United States authorities, nor was it unreasonable for him to take into account that there was nothing placed before him by the applicant to suggest that the applicant’s health conditions would not be addressed in the Florida penal system. Finally, in the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the Minister to exercise his discretion against requesting specific assurances from the United States as a precondition to surrender. The applicant has failed to show that the Minister’s decision is unreasonable. The application for judicial review is dismissed. The surrender should proceed. “Doherty J.A.” “M.J. Moldaver J.A.” “E.A. Cronk J.A.”