United States v. Ramjaun
The fresh medical evidence was inadmissible because it failed the fourth branch of the Palmer test — it could not, when taken with the other evidence before the Minister, reasonably be expected to affect the result; accordingly the motion to adduce fresh evidence and the judicial review application were dismissed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2023 ONCA 684
- Parties
- Respondent: The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States of America; Applicant: Wasseem Ramjaun a.k.a Wasseem Mahmood a.k.a. Wasseem Mahmoud
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 17 October 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Extradition Judicial Review of Surrender Decision / Application for Judicial Review and Motion to Adduce Fresh Evidence Dismissed (oral Reasons)
- Outcome
- Motion to adduce fresh evidence dismissed; application for judicial review dismissed; surrender order of the Minister of Justice upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Surrender Order, Fresh Evidence Admissibility, Palmer Test, Medical Risk in Extradition, Ministerial Inquiries to Requesting State
- 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
Respondent
Wasseem Ramjaun a.k.a Wasseem Mahmood a.k.a. Wasseem Mahmoud
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Extradition Judicial Review of Surrender Decision / Application for Judicial Review and Motion to Adduce Fresh Evidence Dismissed (oral Reasons)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether proposed fresh medical evidence is admissible under the Palmer test
- 2 Whether the applicant's medical condition renders surrender unjust or oppressive
- 3 Whether the Minister's factual finding that US authorities will provide appropriate medical care was reasonable
Ratio Decidendi
The fresh medical evidence was inadmissible because it failed the fourth branch of the Palmer test — it could not, when taken with the other evidence before the Minister, reasonably be expected to affect the result; accordingly the motion to adduce fresh evidence and the judicial review application were dismissed and the Minister's surrender decision was upheld.
Court Disposition
Motion to adduce fresh evidence dismissed; application for judicial review dismissed; surrender order of the Minister of Justice upheld.
Orders
- Motion to adduce fresh evidence dismissed.
- Application for judicial review of the Minister's surrender decision dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
United States v. Ramjaun Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2023-10-17 Neutral citation 2023 ONCA 684 Docket numbers COA-22-CR-0345 Judges Tulloch, Michael H.; Sossin, Lorne; Copeland, Jill M. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: United States v. Ramjaun, 2023 ONCA 684 DATE: 20231017 DOCKET: COA-22-CR-0345 Tulloch C.J.O., Sossin and Copeland JJ.A. IN THE MATTER OF an application for judicial review pursuant to s. 57 of the Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18 BETWEEN The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States of America Respondent and Wasseem Ramjaun a.k.a Wasseem Mahmood a.k.a. Wasseem Mahmoud Applicant Sam Goldstein, for the applicant Kandia Aird, for the respondent Heard and released orally: October 12, 2023 On application for judicial review of the surrender order of the Minister of Justice, dated November 4, 2022. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] We have reviewed the proposed fresh evidence on which the applicant bases his application for judicial review of the Minister of Justice’s surrender decision. In our view, it does not meet the test for admissibility from R. v. Palmer, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759. [2] The proposed fresh evidence provides an update on the applicant’s medical situation. However, it does not materially impact the Minister’s assessment that the applicant’s medical situation does not render his surrender unjust or oppressive. The Minister found that U.S. correctional authorities will ensure the applicant is given appropriate medical care for his specific health issues. The Minister reached this conclusion after making inquiries of U.S. authorities and receiving a detailed response about medical care for the applicant in the U.S. correctional system. [3] In our view, the proposed fresh evidence fails the fourth branch of the Palmer test because it could not, when taken with the other evidence considered by the Minister, reasonably be expected to affect the result of the surrender analysis. [4] Apart from the fresh evidence, the applicant makes no suggestion that the Minister’s surrender decision was unreasonable. [5] The motion to adduce fresh evidence is dismissed, as is the application for judicial review of the Minister’s surrender decision. “M. Tulloch C.J.O.” “L. Sossin J.A.” “J. Copeland J.A.”