Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T17:11:53.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Extradition of Canadian Citizens and Sections 1 and 6(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

J.-G. Castel  and
Sharon A. Williams
J.-G. Castel
Affiliation:
Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto
Sharon A. Williams
Affiliation:
Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 25 , 1988 , pp. 263 - 299
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Part I, Constitution Act, 1982, which is Schedule B, Canada Act 1982 (U.K.),C11.

2 Nussbaum, A., A Concise History of the Law of Nations 9 (1954).Google Scholar

3 La Forest, G.V., Extradition to and from Canada 1 (2nd ed., 1977)Google Scholar; Shearer, I. A., Extradition in International Law 5 (1971)Google Scholar; Williams, S.A. and Castel, J.-G., Canadian Criminal Law: International and Transnational Aspects 348 (1981).Google Scholar

4 International crimes, strido sensu, are offences that have been proscribed by the international community through multilateral treaties or customary international law. International crimes include, for example, hijacking and other terrorist acts such as hostage-taking and attacks against internationally protected persons, trafficking in narcotics, piracy, and war crimes. Transnational crimes (although often incorrectly labelled “international”) are ordinary common law crimes and the only international law connotation is that they contain one or more foreign elements.

5 See, e.g., Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft 1970, 197a Can. T.S. No. 33.

6 See, for example, Canada-United States Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (1985), 24 Int’l Leg. Mat. 1092, not yet in force.

7 R.S.C. 1970, c. E–21.

8 Ibid.

9 On July 11, 1977, Canada signed an extradition treaty with the Federal Republic of West Germany, in force as of September 30, 1979. See 1979 Can. T.S. No. 18. Canada signed an extradition treaty with India in February 1987.

10 See, for example, the extradition treaty between Canada and Israel, 1967 Can. T.S. No. 25.

11 R.S.C. 1970, c. F–32.

12 (1877),3 Q.B.D.42,at 44.

13 Report of the Royal Commission on Extradition, Parliamentary Papers, 1878, vol. 24, Reports, 907–17.

14 The nationality principle, as a basis of jurisdiction, is only used for a few serious crimes.

15 Shearer, op. cit. supra note 3, at 101. See Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th ed., 1977), vol. 18, Extradition and Fugitive Offenders, at 84, para. 211.

16 Re Burley (1865), 1 C.L.J. 34; Re Low (1932), 41 O.W.N. 468 (C.A.). As La Forest, op. cit. supra note 3, at 78, n. 66, indicates, the earlier treaties spoke of “British Subjects.” This includes Canadian citizens.

17 R. v. Wilson (1877), 3 Q.B.D. 42; Re Guerin (1889), 60 L.T.R. 538.

18 [1896] 1 Q.B. 230, at 236. See also R. v. Macdonald, Ex p. Strutt (1901), 11 Q.L.T. 85, at 90 and Re Federal Republic of Germany and Rauca (1983), 145D.L.R. (3d) 638, at 655; [1983J4C.CC. (3d) 385,at4oi,aff’ing (1983) 38O.R. (2d) 705, (1983) 70 C.C.C. (2d) 416 (H.C.).

19 See s. 22 of the Extradition Act.

20 See, e.g., Art. 6 of the Extradition Treaty with the United States, 1976 Can. T.S. No. 3.

21 Op. cit. supra note 3, at 78.

22 Supra note 13.

23 Comment on Harvard Draft Extradition Convention (1935), 29 Am. J. Int’l L. Supp. 128.

24 See Lombois, J.C., Droit pénal international 458 (1971)Google Scholar. See also Schultz, H., “The Principles of the Traditional Law of Extradition,” in Legal Aspects of Extradition among European States, Council of Europe 19–20 (1970).Google Scholar

25 Shearer, op. cit. supra note 3, at 122.

26 Ibid.

27 [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; (1986), 24 G.C.C. (3d) 321, at 344.

28 ( 1986), 24 C.C.C. (3d) 321, at 345.

29 [1986] 1 S.C.R. 441; (1986), 18D.L.R. (4th) 481, at 517.

30 Supra note 18.

31 See the Deschênes Report on War Criminals in Canada (1986). Note the legislation adopted by Parliament in September 1987, to provide for such prosecutions to take place: An Act to Amend the Criminal Code, etc., S.C. 1987, c. 37.

32 See, e.g., Re Decter and United States of America (1983), 148 D.L.R. (3d) 496 (S.C.N.S.); Re Voss and the Queen (1984), la C.C.C. (3d) 538.

32a ( 1987) Man. Q.B., not yet reported.

33 See Proceedings of the Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada, Hansard, January 27, 1981, at 46:117–18.

34 [1984] 1 S.C.R. 297, at 317 (per Mclntyre, J.). See also Reference re Anti-Inflation Act, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 373, at 389 (per Laskin, J.).

35 [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357, at 381–82 (perEstey, J.).

36 1976 Can. T.S. No. 47.

37 213 U.N.T.S. 221 ; reprinted in I. Brownlie, Basic Documents in International Law 194 ( 1967). See also Cohen, M. and Bayefsky, A., “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Public International Law” (1983),61 Can. Bar Rev. 265 Google Scholar; Claydon, J., “The Application of International Human Rights Law by Canadian Courts,” (1981) 30 Buffalo L. Rev. 727.Google Scholar

38 Appi. No. 6242/73 (Briikmann v. F.R.G.) CD. 46, at 202, 210.

39 Nedjati, Z.M., Human Rights under the European Convention 91 (1978).Google Scholar

40 Brownlie, op. cit. supra note 37, at 815.

41 App. No. 6189/73, G.D. 46, at 214.

42 Supra note 38.

43 Nedjati, op. cit. supra note 39, at 136–37.

44 See Doc. H (71 ) 11 of the Council of Europe, and Nedjati, Ibid., at 152.

45 van Dijk, P. and van Hoof, G.J.H., Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights 368 (1984).Google Scholar

46 Ibid.

47 See Jacobs, F., The Convention on Human Rights 185 (1975).Google Scholar

48 van Dijk and van Hoof, op. cit. supra note 45, at 368.

49 Extradition and Fugitive Offenders, op. cit. supra note 15, at 84, para. 211.

50 Cmnd. 9421 (1985).

51 See Williams and Castel, op. cit. supra note 3, at 343–44.

52 1957, ETS 24.

53 [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1110, [1980] 2 C.M.L.R. 125.

54 Ibid., at 1127 (W.L.R.), 142 (C.M.L.R.).

55 [1984]3C.M.L.R.575.

56 S.C. 1976–77, c. sa.

57 S.C. 1974–75–76,0. 108.

58 See Cooperative Committee on Japanese Canadians v. Attorney General of Canada, [1947] A.C. 87, at 104–5 (P.C.).

59 (1986), 55 O.L.R. (2d) 449, at 511.

60 Supra note 27, at 345 et seq. (C.C.C.).

61 R.v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. (1985), 18 C.C.C. (3d) 385, at 430; 18 D.L.R. (4th) 321, at 366; [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at 352.

62 Supra note 18.

63 (1983), 4 C.C.C. (3d), at 397–98, expressly approving Evans, C.J. in the High Court, supra note 18, at 708–9 (O.R. ).

64 R.S.C. 1970, c. E–21.

65 [1986] R.J.Q. 2316.

66 1964 Can. T.S. No. 30, in force December 13, 1964.

67 Supra note 65, at 2332.

68 Ibid., 2333. [I986] R.J.Q. 1740.

70 Ibid., 1744.

71 (1983), 148D.L.R. (3d) 496, aff’d at 512, at 50–9.

72 Supra note 18, 70 C.C.C. (2d), at 429.

73 (1984), 12 C.C.C. (3d) 538.

74 Supra note 27.

73 R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1.

76 At 349–50, esp. at 350: “The objective of protecting our society from the grave ills associated with drug trafficking is, in my view, one of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom in certain cases. Moreover, the degree of seriousness of drug trafficking makes its acknowledgement as a sufficiently important objective for the purposes of s. 1, to a large extent, self-evident. The first criterion of a s. 1 inquiry, therefore, has been satisfied by the Crown.”

77 Regina v. Oakes, supra note 27, S.C.R. at 138–39.

78 Supra note 69, at 1745. See also Cotroni, supra note 65, at 2332.

79 Re Lavigne and O.P.S.E.U., supra note 59, at 513.

80 Ibid., 513–15.

81 Supra note 69.

81a Supra note 32a.

82 R.S.C. 1970, c. F–32.

83 Supra note 18, 70 C.C.C. (2d), at 429 (H.C.); 4 C.C.C. (3d), at 400 (C.A.).

84 See argument presented in the section on Extradition, as to what “remain in” means and that there is no prima facie interference.

85 Supra note 18, at 655 (D.L.R.).

86 Ibid., 659.

87 Ibid., 655. The European Convention on Extradition merely permits a state to refuse to extradite its nationals.

88 See Comment on Harvard Draft Convention on Extradition, (1935) 29 Am. J. Int’lL. Supp. 128.

89 Supra note 18, at 657 (D.L.R.).

90 Ibid., 658.

91 Supra note 69, at 1746.

92 See for instance, Treaty between the United States and Canada on the Transfer of Offenders, 1978, C.T.S. No. 12.

93 See, supra 00–00, and Proceedings of the Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada, 27–1–1981, at 46:118–23, esp. 118–19. Note that Art. 3(1) of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights has been held not to prohibit measures of extradition.

94 Ibid., 46:118.

95 S.C. 1976–77, c. 52.

96 Supra note 92.

97 Section 15(1).

98 In Schmidt v. U.S.A., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 500, at 520. La Forest, J. stated that section 6 was not raised in the case, “no doubt because her counsel believed, as I do, that it was properly disposed of in the Rauca case... .”

99 Supra note 29.

100 See S. A. Williams and J.-G. Castel, op. cit. supra note 3, at vii.

100a [I985] 2 S.C.R. 178.

101 Section 423(3), Criminal Code.

102 Section 423(4), Criminal Code.

103 R.S.C. 1970, c. S–9.

104 (1927),P.C.I.J., Ser. Α., No. 10.

105 Akehurst, M., “Jurisdiction in International Law,” (1973) 46 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 146, at 198.Google Scholar

106 (1987). See also U.S.A. v. Allard and Charette, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 564, at 572, where the Supreme Court of Canada held at p. 7 that: “to arrive at the conclusion that the surrender of the respondents would violate the principles of fundamental justice, it would be necessary to establish that the respondents would face a situation that is simply unacceptable.” See also Argentina v. Mettino, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 536, at 555.

107 Extradition for Drug-Related Offences 64 (1985).

108 [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178.

109 Morgan, D.C., “Controlling Prosecutional Powers,” (1986) 29 Crim. L.Q. 15, at 16.Google Scholar See the Law Reform Commission of Canada, Working Paper 15, Criminal Procedure: Control of the Process ( 1975).

110 Ibid.

111 Ibid., 20.

112 Ibid., 22.

113 Ibid., 30–31. See Cane, P., ‘“Prerogative Acts, Acts of State and Justiciability,” (1980) 29 Int’l and Comp. L.Q. 680, at 681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See Swystun v. U.S.A., (1987) Man. Q.B., not yet reported, where Hanssen J. states at p. 13 that “… if the courts were to adopt the approach taken in El Zein and Cotroni, they would be usurping a function delegated to the Minister of Justice by Parliament.”

114 Supra note 29, at 500.

115 Ibid.

116 Op. cit. supra note 109, at 21.

117 Ibid., 31. See, e.g., R. V. Smythe (1970, 3 C.C.C, (ad) 98; 13 C.R.N.S. 7 (Ont. H.C.), aff’d 3 C.C.C, (2d) 97 (Ont. CA.), aff’d 3 C.C.C. (2d) 366 (S.C.C.).

118 Ibid., 370.

119 Law Reform Commission of Canada, supra note 109, at 22.

120 Ibid., 31, 33–35 (emphasis added).

121 Supra note 29, at 516–17 (D.L.R.). See also Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice 213 (1971).Google Scholar

122 Ibid., 518.

123 Morgan, op. cit. supra note 109, at 54.

124 See La Forest, J. in Schmidt v. U.S.A., supra note 98.

125 1976 C.T.S. No. 3.

126 Italics added.

127 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties ( 1969), Art. 26.

128 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties ( 1969), Art. 27.

129 G. V. La Forest, op. cit. supra note 3, at 22, who relies on Re Warner (1864), 1 C.L.J. 16 (Chamb.); Re Burley (1865), 1 C.L.J. 34 (Chamb.) ; R. v. Morton and Thompson (1868), 19 U.C.C.P. 9; Ex p. Phelan ( 1883), 6 L.N. 261 ; Re Arton (No. 2), [1896] 1 Q.B. 509; Re Collins (No. 3) ( 1905), to C.C.C. 80 (B.C.S.C.). (No. 2) (1906), M C.C.C. 62 (Ont. H.C.J.); Grossberg v. Choquet (1923), 39 C.C.C. 131 (Que. S.C.) ; Loosberg v. Sequin (1933), 6i C.C.C. 77 (Que. S.C.) ; Re Deakins (1962), 133 C.C.C. 275 (Ont. H.C.J.) ; Re Stegeman, [1967] 2 C.C.C. 97 (B.C.C.A.), affg 58 D.L.R. (2d) 415 (S.C.) ; Re Whipple ( 1972), 6 C.C.C. (2d) 517 (B.C.S.C.) ; Re United States of America and Couche (1976), 30 C.C.C. (2d) 443 (Fed. CA.). See also Zingre, Wiest and Reiser v. The Queen, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 392, at 409–10.

130 Reference re Exemption of U.S. Forces from Canadian Criminal Law, [1943] S.C.R. 483, at 516; [1943] 4 D.L.R. 11, at 41; Foreign Legations Case, [1943] S.C.R. 208, at 330–31 ; [1943] 3 D.L.R. 481, at 501.

131 For instance, in Re The Annapolis, Lush. 295, at 306 ( 1861 ) ; Solomon v. Commrs. of Customs and Excise, [1967] 2 Q.B. 116, at 143; [1966] 3 All. E.R. 871 (C.A.) : “But if the terms of the legislation are not clear but are reasonably capable of more than one meaning, the treaty itself becomes relevant, for there is a presumption that Parliament does not intend to act in breach of international law, including therein specific treaty obligations. . . .” Post Office v. Estuary Radio, [1967] 1 W.L.R. 1396; [1968] 2 Q.B. 740, at 757; [1967] 3 All E.R. 663 (C.A.) ; Stag. Line Ltd. v. Foscolo, Mango & Co., [1932] A.C. 328, at 350 (H.L.) ; Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) ) 64, at 118 ( 1804) ; R. v. Keyn [187677] 2 Ex. 63, at 85 (1876) (per Sir R. Phillimore) ; Mortensen v. Peters, 14 Scots L.T.R. 227 (1906).

132 Cohen, M. and Bayefsky, A.F., “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Public International Law,” (1983) 61 Can. Bar Rev. 265, at 281.Google Scholar See also at 288.

133 E.g., The Marianna Flora, 24 U.S. (11 Wheat) 1 (1826) ; Swait v. Board of Trustees of Maritime Transportation Union (1967), 61 D.L.R. (2d) 317; [1967] B.R. 315 (Que. C.A.).