United States v. Lane
The publication ban imposed by the extradition judge does not apply to the Court of Appeal's Decision unless expressly or by further order extended; accordingly the ban was not applied to the Decision and the Decision may be published.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2014 ONCA 587
- Parties
- Appellant: The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States of America; Respondent: Brandon William Lane, a.k.a. "BossHiaka"; Intervener: The Attorney General of Ontario
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 14 August 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Extradition Appeal Regarding Publication Ban / Court of Appeal Determination on Applicability of Publication Ban to Its Decision
- Outcome
- Court of Appeal held the publication ban did not apply to its Decision and permitted publication of the Decision.
- Legal Topics
- Publication Ban, Judicial Discretion, Public Access to Court Decisions, Scope of Extradition Orders
- 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
Appellant
Brandon William Lane, a.k.a. "BossHiaka"
Respondent
The Attorney General of Ontario
Intervener
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal Regarding Publication Ban / Court of Appeal Determination on Applicability of Publication Ban to Its Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a publication ban imposed by the extradition judge during the extradition hearing applies to the Court of Appeal's decision
- 2 Whether a publication ban extends automatically to subsequent decisions or requires further order
Ratio Decidendi
The publication ban imposed by the extradition judge does not apply to the Court of Appeal's Decision unless expressly or by further order extended; accordingly the ban was not applied to the Decision and the Decision may be published.
Court Disposition
Court of Appeal held the publication ban did not apply to its Decision and permitted publication of the Decision.
Orders
- Publication ban imposed during the extradition hearing is not applied to the Court of Appeal Decision; the Decision may be published.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
United States v. Lane Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2014-08-14 Neutral citation 2014 ONCA 587 Docket numbers C57814 Judges Simmons, Janet M.; Gillese, Eileen E.; Hourigan, C. William Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: United States v. Lane, 2014 ONCA 587 DATE: 20140815 DOCKET: C57814 Simmons, Gillese and Hourigan JJ.A. BETWEEN The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States of America Appellant and Brandon William Lane, a.k.a. “BossHiaka” Respondent and The Attorney General of Ontario Intervener Mark Sandler and Nancy Dennison, for the appellant John Norris, for the respondent Robert Hubbard and Michael Fawcett, for the intervener Heard: June 16, 2014 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Brian W. Abrams of the Superior Court of Justice, dated September 26, 2013. ENDORSEMENT [1] On July 2, 2014, this court released its decision in respect of the appeal in this matter (the “Decision”). A question arose as to whether the publication ban imposed by the extradition judge during the extradition hearing applied to the Decision. [2] In our view, if not explicit, it is at least implicit that the ban is subject to further order of the court. We would not apply the ban to the Decision. Accordingly, it can be published. “Janet Simmons J.A.” “E.E. Gillese J.A.” “C.W. Hourigan J.A.”