United States of America v. McCalla

United States of America v. McCalla

On a proper application of the double criminality principle, the evidence supported that the alleged conduct constituted a breach of probation under Canadian law, in particular because of the mandatory probation terms in s.732.1(2); therefore the committal order was justified.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
C44625
Parties
Respondent: The United States of America; Appellant/person Sought: Kevin George McCALLA aka "MARCUS BRYANT" aka "EDWIN RIVERA"
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Extradition/criminal / Appeal From Committal Order (superior Court of Justice, Nov 30, 2005)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; committal order affirmed.
Legal Topics
Double Criminality, Probation Breach, Mandatory Probation Terms, Constitutional Challenges
Source Language
en
Criminal Extradition Double Criminality Probation Breach Mandatory Probation Terms Constitutional Challenges

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The United States of America

Respondent

Kevin George McCALLA aka "MARCUS BRYANT" aka "EDWIN RIVERA"

Appellant/person Sought

Procedural Posture

Extradition/criminal / Appeal From Committal Order (superior Court of Justice, Nov 30, 2005)

  1. 1 Whether the alleged conduct satisfied the double criminality requirement for extradition
  2. 2 Whether the conduct constituted a breach of probation under Canadian law having regard to mandatory probation terms in s.732.1(2)
  3. 3 Constitutional challenges to the extradition process (raised but not pursued)

Ratio Decidendi

On a proper application of the double criminality principle, the evidence supported that the alleged conduct constituted a breach of probation under Canadian law, in particular because of the mandatory probation terms in s.732.1(2); therefore the committal order was justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; committal order affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order of committal dated November 30, 2005 affirmed