Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of British Columbia

USA v. Fraser

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The application for further disclosure was dismissed and the court declined to clarify the prior decision because the request sought a hypothetical answer without a proper application, supporting law or evidence and no application to reopen had been made.

Court disposition

Application for Disclosure dismissed; request for clarification declined.

Orders

  • Application for Disclosure dismissed
  • Request for clarification declined

02

Material facts

Parties

Attorney General on behalf of the United States of America

Requesting State Counsel: A. Lord; K. Swift

Shane Donald Fraser

Person Sought

Todd Ian Ferguson

Person Sought

Daniel James Joinson

Person Sought

Darrell Joseph Romano

Person Sought

Robert Frank Romano

Person Sought

Ivan Djuracic

Person Sought Counsel: P. Edelmann

Aaron Randolph Anderson

Person Sought

Jamie Daniel Nenasheff

Person Sought

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Extradition / Application for Disclosure Clarification (post Judgment)

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Mr. Djuracic seeks clarification whether the decision precludes adducing further evidence or clarifying the remedy sought and whether the finding at paragraph 159 means that even if there were admissible compelling evidence of interception/collection/storage of judicial or counsel-related data it would not interfere with judicial independence or the role of counsel and thus no remedy would be required.
Respondent
The Requesting State took no position. The Attorney General of Canada opposed further disclosure; the court previously dismissed the disclosure applications and no application to reopen has been brought. The request for clarification was unsupported by law or evidence and therefore the court declined to answer hypothetical questions.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    2015 BCSC 145 (Watchuk J.)

    Court will not answer hypothetical questions or clarify judgments in a vacuum without a proper application, supporting law and evidence.

  2. 02

    2014 BCSC 1132; 2015 BCSC 145

    Applications to reopen or seek further disclosure require a formal application supported by evidence and legal argument.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The application for further disclosure was dismissed and the court declined to clarify the prior decision because the request sought a hypothetical answer without a proper application, supporting law or evidence and no application to reopen had been made.

Obiter and limits

  • The Requesting State took no position on the clarification request.
  • No application to reopen the disclosure decision had been filed.
  • A request for clarification unsupported by law or evidence will not be decided.

Court disposition

Application for Disclosure dismissed; request for clarification declined.

  • Application for Disclosure dismissed
  • Request for clarification declined

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court of British Columbia · 30 January 2015

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Judgment· 30 January 2015

2015 BCSC 145

2015 BCSC 145 USA v. Fraser

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: USA v. Fraser, 2015 BCSC 145 Date: 20150130 Docket: 26331 Registry: Vancouver In the Matter of the Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18, as amended And in the Matter of the Attorney General on behalf of the United States of America and Shane Donald Fraser, Todd Ian Ferguson, Daniel James Joinson, Darrell Joseph Romano, Robert Frank Romano, Ivan Djuracic, Aaron Randolph Anderson and Jamie Daniel Nenasheff Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Watchuk Reasons for Judgment Re: Application for Disclosure Clarification Counsel for the Attorney General of Canada: A. Lord K. Swift Counsel for the Person Sought Djuracic: P. Edelmann Place and Dates of Written Request and Appearance: Vancouver, B.C. July 14, 2014 November 18, 2014 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. January 30, 2015 [1] In Reasons for Judgment reported at 2014 BCSC 1132, I dismissed the Applications of Mr. Djuracic and Mr. Fraser for further disclosure in this extradition matter. [2] Mr. Djuracic, by way of email, seeks clarification as follows: I wish to clarify whether the decision precludes Mr. Djuracic from adducing any further evidence to support the allegations or from clarifying the remedy sought. In particular, I would seek clarification of the findings starting at paragraph 159. Is this a finding that even if there were admissible and compelling evidence of

interception, collection and/or storage of judicial information or data related to counsel (the first allegation set out in paragraph 90 of the reasons), that it would not interfere with either the independence of the judiciary or the role of counsel, and therefore a remedy would not be needed? [3] The Requesting State takes no position. [4] The Application for Disclosure was dismissed. No application to reopen has been received. Mr. Djuracic's request for clarification was not accompanied by law or evidence. [5] Mr. Djuracic's question cannot be answered in a vacuum and I decline to do so. "The Honourable Madam Justice Watchuk"

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

USA v. Fraser, 2015 BCSC 145

Case cited

2014 BCSC 1132

Case cited

Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18, as amended

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.