USA v. Fraser
- Citation
- 2015 BCSC 145
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 30 January 2015
- Posture
- Extradition / Application for Disclosure Clarification (post Judgment)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 30 January 2015
- Posture
- Extradition / Application for Disclosure Clarification (post Judgment)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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. SwiftShane Donald Fraser
Person SoughtTodd Ian Ferguson
Person SoughtDaniel James Joinson
Person SoughtDarrell Joseph Romano
Person SoughtRobert Frank Romano
Person SoughtIvan Djuracic
Person Sought Counsel: P. EdelmannAaron Randolph Anderson
Person SoughtJamie Daniel Nenasheff
Person Sought03
Procedural history
Posture
Extradition / Application for Disclosure Clarification (post Judgment)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the prior dismissal precludes adducing further evidence or clarifying the remedy sought
- 02
Whether admissible evidence of interception/collection/storage of judicial information or counsel-related data would interfere with judicial independence or the role of counsel and require a remedy
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Judgment· 30 January 2015
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"
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.