Appellant Suresh-Sriskandarajah

File No. 34009
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO)
BETWEEN:
SURESH SRISKANDARAJAH
APPELLANT
(Appellant)
- and-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MINISTER OF JUSTICE and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
RESPONDENTS
(Respondents)
- and-
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO
INTERVENER
APPELLANT'S FACTUM
(Rules a/the Supreme Caurt a/Canada, Rule 42)
Mr. John Norris
Ms. Brydie Bethell
Barristers
Simcoe Chambers
Suite 100
116 Simcoe Street
Toronto, Ontario
M5H4E2
Brian A. Crane, Q.c.
Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
Suite 2600
160 Elgin Street
Ottawa, Ontario
KIP lC3
Tel.: 416 596-2960
Fax: 416 596-2598
[email protected]
brydie. [email protected]
Tel.: 613 786-0107
Fax: 613 563-9869
brian.craneialgowlings.com
Counsel for the Appellant
Suresh Sriskandarajah
Agent for the Appellant
Suresh Sriskandarajah
Mr. Sean Gaudet
Ms. Nancy Dennison
Attorney General of Canada
Department of Justice
The Exchange Tower
Suite 3400
130 King Street West
Toronto, Ontario
M5X 1K6
Myles Kirvan
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Per: Robert Frater
East Memorial Building
284 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1AOH8
Tel.: 416 973-0392
Fax: 416 973-4328
[email protected]
nancy.dennisonlaliustice.gc.ca
Tel.: 613 957-4763
Fax: 613 954-1920
ro bert. fraterlalj udice. gc .ca
Counsel for the Respondent
Agent for the Respondent
Robert E. Houston, Q.C.
Burke-Robertson
70 Gloucester Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K2POA2
Tel.: 613 566-2058
Fax: 613 235-4430
[email protected]
Agent for the Intervener
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)
BETWEEN:
SURESH SRISKANDARAJAH
Appellant
- and-
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE FOR CANADA
Respondents
- andATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO
Intervener
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I - SUMMARY OF THE FACTS ............................................................... .1
A. Overview .............................................................................................. .1
B. Statement of the Case .............................................................................. 3
C. The Allegations against the Appellant ........................................................... 5
D. The Committal Decision ............................................................................ 7
E. The Surrender Decision ............................................................................ 8
PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE. .................................................................... 10
PART III-STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT ....................................................... .12
A. Section 6(1) of the Charter ......................................................................... 11
B. The Need to Reconsider Cotroni ................................................................ 15
C. The Requirements of Procedural Fairness ................................................... 21
D. The Surrender Decision in Unreasonable .....................................................29
PART IV - SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING COSTS ............................................. .32
PART V - ORDER SOUGHT ............................................................................ 32
1
PART VI-TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................ .33
PART VII- STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS ...................................................... .44
11
S.C.C. Court File No.: 34009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)
BETWEEN:
SURESH SRISKANDARAJAH
Appellant
- and-
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE FOR CANADA
Respondents
- andATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO
Intervener
APPELLANT'S FACTUM
PART I - SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
A)
Overview
1.
This appeal, joined with those of Piratheepan Nadarajah and Mohammad Khawaja, is the
first to challenge the constitutionality of Canada's anti-terrorism laws enacted in late 2001
following the hon'ific acts of terrorism that took place in the United States of America on
September 11 of that year.
2
2.
The Appellant also directly challenges the Cotroni analysis of s.6(1) of the Charter on
the basis that it is out-dated and inappropriate to address the realities of extradition requests in
light of recent trends in extradition and criminal justice where sweeping, unsubstantiated claims
of jurisdiction are asserted by foreign states over the conduct of Canadian citizens within
Canadian territory. In the Appellant's case, the United States offers no claim of jurisdiction over
the matter other than the bare assertion of an intention to prosecute the offences. Despite the
Appellant's request, the Minister made no enquiries of the requesting state for the basis of its
jurisdiction to prosecute in the Appellant.
3.
The Appellant is a Canadian citizen. As set out in the Record of the Case, the offences as
alleged were committed in Canada, and the Minister accepted this fact.'
The terrorist
organization alleged in connection with the offences - if it even still exists - is based in a third
country whose targets and aspirational goals were domestic, and in any event, not directed at the
United States.
There is no allegation (let alone evidence) that any of the alleged conduct
occurred in the United States or had as its target the United States or any of its citizens. Simply
alleging that the offences are in some way of a nature that they could be caught by anti-terrorism
laws of a requesting state does not establish the jurisdiction of the requesting state to prosecute
the Appellant.
Such a bare assertion with no jurisdictional foundation risks neutralizing
domestic extradition law, leaving it a mere rubber stamp. If a requesting state seeks to assert a
claim of jurisdiction over certain offences, Canadian extradition law entails a process to
scrutinize those claims of jurisdiction. The Appellant's Canadian citizenship has meaning within
that process, and ought to have meaning in this context; the constitutional protections afforded to
him by s. 6(1) of the Charter ought not to be rendered a nullity. 2
4.
While this appeal is joined with that of Piratheepan Nadarajah and of Mahmoud Khawaja
because of the common legal questions the appeals raise, the matters are completely unrelated.
The Appellant and Mr. Nadarajah, unlike Mr. Khawaja, are not charged with any offences in
Canada. The Appellant and Mr. Nadarajah are separately sought in two different extradition
I Minister's Reasons on Surrender re Sriskandarajah (November 17,2009) at p. 7: Joint Appellants' Record
("J.A.R."), Vol. I, p. 54 at Line 10.
2
United States ofAmerica v. Kwok, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 532 at 567-568.
3
requests from the United States of America for the purpose of prosecution for terrorism-related
offences there.
The allegations against the Appellant and Mr. Nadarajah are distinct and
unrelated.
B)
Statement ofthe Case
5.
The United States of America requests the extradition of the Appellant for the purpose of
prosecution in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, on charges of conspiracy to
provide material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organization and wilfully dealing in
the property of a specially designated terrorist organization. In both instances, the terrorist
organization is alleged to be the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam ("LTTE").
6.
On August 21,2006, the Appellant was arrested on the extradition request.
7.
The extradition request is supported by a Record of the Case certified on October 18,
2006, and a Supplemental Record of the Case certified on October 17,2007.3
8.
The first Authority to Proceed ("ATP") was issued by the Minister of Justice on
November 20, 2006. It listed the single offence of participating in the activity of a terrorist
group (Criminal Code, s.83.18).4
9.
This ATP was replaced by another, issued on October 9, 2007. The new ATP listed three
offences as corresponding to the conduct alleged against the appellant: participating in the
activity of a terrorist group (Criminal Code, s. 83.18); providing, making available, etc. property
or services for terrorist purposes (Criminal Code, s. 83.03); and instructing to carry out activity
3 Record of the Case, at para. 8(a): J.A.R., Vol. II, p. 98-123; Supplementary Record ofthe Case, at paras. 2-3:
J.A.R., Vol. II, p. 124-140.
4
Authority to Proceed (November 20, 2006): J.A.R., Vol. II, p. 96.
4
for a terrorist group (Criminal Code, s. 83.21).
5
As stated above, the terrorist group in question
is the LTTE.
10.
At his extradition hearing before the Honourable Justice Pattillo of the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, the Appellant challenged the constitutionality of certain key elements of the
offences set out in the ATP. The Appellant also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence
offered in support of the extradition request.
11.
For reasons dated March 5, 2009, the extradition judge dismissed the constitutional
challenge and ordered the Appellant committed for surrender on the three offences set out in the
ATP dated October 9, 2007.
12.
For reasons dated November 17, 2009, the Minister of Justice ordered the Appellant
surrendered on the extradition request.
13.
For reasons released on December 17, 2010, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (per
Doherty, Moldaver and Cronk JJ.A.) dismissed the Appellant's appeal against committal and
application for judicial review of the surrender decision.
14.
The Appellant's extradition hearing, appeal against committal and application for judicial
review of the surrender decision all occurred together with those for Piratheepan Nadarajah. Mr.
Nadarajah is also the subject of an extradition request to the United States on terrorism-related
offences and weapons charges.
15.
Apart from the fact that Mr. Nadarajah is also alleged to have been attempting to assist
the LTTE, the Appellant's matter and Mr. Nadarajah's matter are completely unrelated.
However, throughout the Canadian proceedings, the Appellant and Mr. Nadarajah have jointly
raised common legal issues, including the constitutional challenge to parts of the anti-terrorism
5
Authority to Proceed (October 9, 2007): J.A.R., Vol. II, p. 97.
5
provisions of the Criminal Code. Before this Court, the Appellant and Mr. Nadarajah6 adopt and
rely upon one another's written submissions in support oftheir respective appeals.
C)
The Allegations against the Appellant
16.
In summary, the United States alleges that the Appellant assisted persons alleged to be
L TTE officials with researching and acquiring electronic equipment, submarine and warship
design software, communications equipment, and other technology. It is further alleged that he,
together with others, smuggled unknown items into LTTE-controlled territory in Sri Lanka. He
is also alleged to have lanndered money for the LTTE and to have connselled individuals on how
to smuggle goods to the LTTE in Sri Lanka.
17.
In September 2004, the Appellant is alleged to have attempted to procure "towers" andlor
"tower-related equipment" for Thavarjah Pratheepan, who is alleged to be a senior LTIE arms
and technology procurement agent.
18.
The only evidence in support of this is emails alleged to have been sent from the
Appellant to Mr. Pratheepan discussing a possible purchase and requesting further specifications.
There is no evidence of what these "towers" were for, from whom they were to be purchased or
whether the purchase ever went through. There is no evidence ofMr. Pratheepan's whereabouts
at the time of these exchanges.
It is alleged, however, that he was taken into custody in
Indonesia in January 2007. At that time, Mr. Pratheepan's computer is alleged to have contained
information relating to weapons procurement. There is no evidence that any of that information
had anything whatsoever to do with the Appellant, or that he was aware of this aspect of Mr.
Pratheepan's activities.'
6
S.C.C. Court File No.: 34013.
7 Record of the Case, at para. 8(a): J.A.R., Vol. II, pp. 110-111; Supplementary Record of the Case, at paras. 2-3:
J.A.R., Vol. II, p. 125.
6
19.
In March 2005, the Appellant is alleged to have conveyed to Mr. Pratheepan contact
information for an individual who worked at Raytheon Aircraft Company, which is alleged to be
a "large military contractor". Apart from a reference to this individual working on air traffic
radar, nothing else is known about the exchange of information. There is no evidence that
Pratheepan ever made contact with this individual, or what was his interest in this person. 8
20.
In March 2005, the Appellant is also alleged to have facilitated a bank transfer of funds.
While there is some evidence that the funds were to be used for the purchase of two airline
tickets to Sri Lanka, there is no evidence as to who would be traveling or for what purpose, nor is
there any evidence that the Appellant knew anything about the purpose of the transfer. 9
21.
On or about October 23, 2005, the Appellant is alleged to have provided instructions to
others on how to smuggle electronics and other goods into LTTE-controlled territory in Sri
Lanka. There is no evidence that the goods were intended for the LTIE or whether they were
ever delivered.! 0
22.
In February or March 2006, it is alleged that the Appellant wrote emails to a person
believed to be Ramanan Mylvaganam in attempting to purchase ship design software from a
U.K. company. The Appellant allegedly instructed Mr. Mylvaganam to tell the company that it
was for a fourth year school project. There is no evidence that the purchase was ever completed.
The extradition judge found that there was some evidence that the Appellant "was involved with
an individual in the United States in the purchase or attempted purchase of submarine and
warship design software."!! Contrary to the extradition judge's finding, there was no evidence
that anyone involved in this transaction was in the United States.
8
Record of the Case, at para. 8(a): J.A.R., Vol. II, pp. 110-111.
9
Record ofthe Case, at para. 9: J.A.R., Vol. II, pp. 116-118.
10
Record ofthe Case, at para. 8(g): J.A.R., Vol. II, pp. 114-116.
11
Reasons for Committal of Pattillo J. (March 5, 2009) at para. 105: J.A.R., Vol. I, pp. 40-41.
7
23.
Further, the purchase order is alleged to have been for thirteen different products, only
one of which - a "Solid Modeller" - is specified. This appears to be software which "enables the
designer to create a sold model or a marine vehicle."
There is no evidence as to who the
software was being purchased for or why, nor is there any evidence that the transaction was ever
completed. 12
24.
On an unknown date, the Appellant and Mr. Mylvaganam are alleged to have attempted
to purchase night vision equipment from a Canadian company. There is no evidence that the
purchase was ever completed. 13
25.
In or about April 2006, Mr. Mylvaganam is alleged to have attempted to send $22,000
worth of "dual use" equipment to the Appellant, although there is no evidence or allegation that
the appellant either received that equipment, that he knew anything about it or who it was
ultimately destined for. 14
26.
On an unknown date, Mr. Mylvaganam is alleged to have made a wire transfer of $5000,
allegedly at the Appellant's request, to two companies in Singapore that distribute "smoldering
equipment". There is no evidence as to the purpose of this transfer or for whose benefit it was
madeY
D)
The Committal Decision
27.
The extradition judge recognized that there was no direct evidence that the appellant
knew that any of his dealings were with members of or were for the benefit of the LTTE. He
found, however, that "[w]hile each of the identified pieces of evidence may not connect Mr.
12
Record ofthe Case, at para. 8(c): J.A.R., Vol. II, pp. IlI-I13.
13
Record ofthe Case, at para. 8(d): J.A.R., Vol. II, pp.Il3-Il4.
14
Record of the Case, at para. 8(e): J.A.R., Vol. II, p. 114.
15
Record of the Case, at para. 8(1): J.A.R., Vol. II, p. 114.
8
Sriskandarajah to the LTTE or indicate his knowledge of it, when the evidence against him is
viewed as a whole, there is certainly some evidence in my view from which a jury properly
instructed could make that finding". 16 Accordingly, the extradition judge concluded that the test
for committal under s. 29(I)(a) of the Extradition Act was met. This conclusion was upheld by
the Court of Appeal for Ontario. 17
E)
The Surrender Decision
28.
The Appellant provided written submissions to the Minister of Justice opposing surrender
on several grounds. He presented a substantial body of evidence to the Minister demonstrating
his good character. The Minister accepted that the Appellant "has been a remarkable and highly
successful young man." He concluded, however, that there was nothing in the Appellant's
personal circumstances that would render his surrender to the United States unjust or
.
18
oppressIve.
29.
The Minister also concluded that the Appellant's surrender was not barred for any other
reason by s. 44(1)(a) of the Extradition Act, that it would not infringe s. 7 of the Charter and that
it was a justifiable limit on his right as a Canadian citizen to remain in Canada guaranteed by s.
6(1) of the Charter.
30.
In connection with s. 6(1) of the Charter, the Appellant requested that the Minister
enquire of the requesting state the basis of jurisdiction. 19 The Minister refused this request. The
Minister accepted that all of the Appellant's conduct is alleged to have been committed on
Canadian soil. 20 But the Minister also appears to have concluded that the nature of the offences
16
Reasons for Committal of Pattillo J. (March 5, 2009), at para. 109: J.A.R., Vol. I, p. 42.
17 Reasons for Judgment ofthe Court of Appeal for Ontario re Sriskandarajah (United States ofAmerica v.
Sriskandarajah, 2010 ONCA 857): J.A.R., Vol. I, p. 63-76.
IS Minister's Reasons on Surrender re Sriskandarajah (November 17, 2009) at p. 4: J.A.R., Vol. I, p. 51 at Lines
35-38.
19 Submissions to the Minister of Justice on behalf of Suresh Sriskandarajah (July 24, 2009), at para. 50: J.A.R.,
Vol. II, pp. 46-47.
20
Minister's Reasons on Surrender re Sriskandarajah (November 17, 2009) at p. 7: J.A.R., Vol. I, p. 54 at Line 10.
9
was international; he stated that the "negative impact" of his actions "would have been felt in
jurisdictions outside of Canada."
The Minister does not specific which jurisdictions.
Significantly, the Minister did not state that the "negative impact", however defined, would have
been felt in the United States. In addition, the Minister appears to complete his answer to the
Appellant's jurisdictional challenge with the argument that since the United States put resources
into investigating the offences, this somehow entitled the United States to the prize of
prosecuting the Appellant:
"[ ... ] agents of the United States [... ] have been investigating individuals [... ]
that allegedly provide material support to the LTTE. It is this investigation which
linked Mr. Sriskandarajah to the LTTE [... ].
[ ... ]
The United States has developed the case against Mr. Sriskandarajah. Charges
have been laid against Mr. Sriskandarajah in the United States and the United
States is also ready to proceed to trial against him. In Canada, no charges have
been laid against Mr. Sriskandarajah and none are completed?'
31.
The Appellant also requested but was also refused disclosure of the "Cotroni assessment"
of the possibility of a Canadian prosecution. 22
32.
The Minister's conclusions were upheld by the Court of Appeal on the application for
judicial review of the surrender decision. The Court of Appeal also concluded that the Minister
did not deny the Appellant procedural fairness in refusing to disclose the Cotroni assessment.
Minister'S Reasons on Surrender re Sriskandarajah (November 17, 2009) at p. 7: J.A.R., Vol. I, p. 54 at Lines
15-18 and 28-30.
21
Minister's Reasons on Surrender re Sriskandarajah (November 17,2009) at pp. 6-7: J.A.R., Vol. I, p. 53 Line 32
to p. 54 line 8.
22
10
PART II - QUESTIONS IN ISSUE
33.
On November 8,2011, the Chief Justice stated the following constitutional questions:
1.
Do ss. 83.03, 83.18 or 83.21 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, which
incorporate the definition of "terrorist activity" in s. 83.01(1) of the Criminal
Code, infringe s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter ofRights and Freedoms?
2.
If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law that can be
demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian
Charter ofRights and Freedoms?
3.
Does ss. 83.18 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, which incorporates
the definition of "terrorist activity" in s. 83.01(1) of the Criminal Code, infringe s.
7 of the Canadian Charter ofRights and Freedoms?
4.
If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law that can be
demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian
Charter ofRights and Freedoms?
34.
The Appellant, together with Mr. Nadarjah, also raises the following issues:
5.
Did the Court of Appeal for Ontario err in failing to find that the Minister denied
the Appellant procedural fairness; and
6.
Did the Court of Appeal for Ontario err in concluding that the Minister's decision
that surrender would not unjustifiably limit the Appellant's s. 6(1) Canadian
Charter ofRights and Freedoms rights was reasonable?
35.
The grounds relating to the constitutional challenge to the anti-terrorism provisions are
addressed in Mr. Nadarajah's factum. The Appellant adopts those submissions. The grounds
11
relating to the scope of procedural fairness in the context of surrender decisions and s. 6(1) of the
Charter are addressed below.
PART III - STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT
A)
Extradition and s. 6(1) of the Charter
36.
The Appellant and Mr. Nadarajab are both Canadian citizens. Section 6(1) of the Charter
guarantees the right of every Canadian citizen "to enter, remain in and leave Canada." In United
States ofAmerica v. Cotroni, this Court found that extradition is a prima facie violation of s. 6( 1)
which, to be constitutional, must be justified as a reasonable limit under s. 1. A majority of the
Court found extradition to be a reasonable limit on a Canadian citizen's s. 6(1) rights, judging
that the infringement that results from extradition "lies at the outer edges of the core values
sought to be protected by the provision.,,23 Writing for the majority, La Forest J. held:
As against this somewhat peripheral Charter infringement must be weighed the
importance of the objectives sought by extradition - the investigation,
prosecution, repression and punishment of both national and transnational crimes
for the protection of the public. These objectives, we saw, are of pressing and
substantial concern. They are, in fact, essential to the maintenance of a free and
democratic society. In my view, they warrant the limited interference with the
right guaranteed by s. 6(1) to remain in Canada. That right, it seems to me, is
infringed as little as possible, or at the very least as little as reasonably possible?4
37.
The majority in Cotroni therefore declined to recognize a general exception to extradition
for a Canadian citizen who could be charged in Canada. 25 While surrender to a foreign state for
the purpose of prosecution was upheld as a reasonable limit on s. 6(1) in the circumstances of
Cotroni, the Court did not hold that extradition per se is always justified under s. 1 of the
Charter. As the Court later affirmed in United States of America v. Kwok, "a person whose
23
United States ofAmerica v. Cotroni, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469 at 1481.
24
United States ofAmerica v. Cotroni, supra, at 1490.
25
United States ofAmerica v. COII'oni, supra, at 1494.
12
extradition is sought from Canada can argue that, in the circumstances of his or her case, a
surrender order would be an unjustified infringement of s. 6(1) if, for instance, an equally
effective prospect of prosecuting in Canada had been unjustifiably and improperly abandoned. ,,26
That is to say, there can be circumstances in which the violation of s. 6(1) is unjustified,
surrender would therefore be unconstitutional and a remedy for this breach under s. 24(1) of the
Charter is required. 27
38.
In Cotroni, the majority, while rejecting the government's argument that s. 6(1) only
applied when a Canadian citizen is threatened with governmental action which arbitrarily or
totally deprived the citizen of his or her right to remain in Canada through exile, banishment or
expulsion, nevertheless found that "the central thrust of s. 6(1) is against exile and banishment,
the purpose of which is the exclusion of membership in the national community." It was relative
to this "core" that extradition, which as such is not directed at exclusion from membership in the
national community, was judged to be a "somewhat peripheral" infringement ofs .6(1).28
39.
As support for the idea that the infringement was "somewhat peripheral", the majority
noted: "An accused may return to Canada following his trial and acquittal or, if he has been
convicted, after he has served his sentence. The impact of extradition on the rights of a citizen to
remain in Canada appears to me to be of secondary importance. In fact, so far as Canada and the
United States are concerned, a person convicted may, in some cases, be permitted to serve his
sentence in Canada: see Transfer of Offenders Act, S.C. 1977-78, C.9.,,29
26
27
United States ofAmerica v. Kwok, [2001]1 S.C.R. 532 at 567-568.
United States ofAmerica v. Kwok, supra, at 567-68.
Writing in dissent in Cotroni, Wilson J. (Sopinka J., concurring) stated: "I may say that I view with some alann
my colleague's characterization of the proposed extradition of the respondents as a "peripheral" violation of s. 6(1).
If one characterizes a complete denial of the citizen's right to remain in Canada under s .6(1) as a "peripheral"
violation, then, of course, one has already pre-judged the s.l issue. I would, however, respectfully suggest that such
an approach represents a novel departure from the Court's traditional approach to the balancing process called for
under s.l and that could pose a very serious threat to the protection for the citizen which the Charter was intended to
provide" (at 1511).
28
29
United States ofAmerica v. Cotroni, supra, at 1482.
13
40.
In upholding the constitutionality of extradition generally in Cotroni, the majority no
doubt had in mind the paradigmatic case of a "fugitive" from justice. Where an accused is
charged with committing an offence in the requesting state and his or her retUlTI to that
jurisdiction for the purpose of prosecution is sought, the fugitive's Canadian citizenship may
appear to be of limited relevance when weighed against the interests of the community alleged to
have been harmed by his or her conduct. Thus, in La Forest's Extradition to and from Canada,
the author writes:
Once the evidence establishes a prima facie case and particularly the fact that the
requesting state has jurisdiction over the offence for which the fugitive's retmn is sought,
it is clear that the fugitive may well have acted in a manner that has substantially affected
the requesting state, a state with whom Canada has an extradition treaty and whose
judicial process has been determined to afford an individual a fair trial. In these
circumstances, it is reasonable to suggest that the fugitive should be tried in the
requesting state according to its own procedures. The position favouring the extradition
of nationals is particularly well-expressed in the American decision of Neely v. Henkel
(No.1) [180 U.S. 109 (1901)]:
... we are reminded of the fact that the appellant is a citizen of the United States.
But such citizenship does not give him an immunity to commit crime in other
countries, nor entitled him to demand, of right, a trial in any other mode than that
allowed to its own people by the country whose laws he has violated and from
whose justice he has fled. When an American citizen commits a crime in a
foreign country he cannot complain if required to submit to such modes of trial
and to such punishment as the laws of that country may prescribe for its own
people, unless a different mode be provided for by treaty stipulations between that
country and the United States?O
41.
This conception of the fugitive also informed the Court's discussion of s.6(1) of the
Charter in United States of America v. Burns. 3 \ In that case, the accused Rafay and Bmns were
wanted in the United States for the murder of Rafay's father, mother and sister in Bellevue,
Washington. According to the accused, they had been at the Rafay family home on the night of
the murders but had gone out and later retmned to find the three family members murdered and
the house appearing to have been burgled. While police suspected Rafay and Burns of the
murders, they did not have enough evidence to charge them at the time and Rafay and Burns
Anne Warner La Forest, La Forest's Extradition to andfrom Canada (3,d ed.) (Aurora, Ont.: Canada Law Book,
1991), pp. 98-99 [footnotes omitted].
30
31
United States ofAmerican v. Burns, [2001]1 S.C.R. 283.
14
returned to Canada. They were charged subsequently in the U.S. and their extradition from
Canada was requested.
42.
The Court in Burns wrote as follows with respect to s. 6(1) ofthe Charter:
We accept that when the respondents are in British Columbia they are "at home".
They are also using "home" as a safe haven. A murderer who flees the scene of a
crime across an international boundary is seeking a "safe haven" irrespective of
whether he or she holds citizenship in the state from which flight commenced, or
in the destination state, or in neither. In all cases, the international boundary is to
some extent an obstacle to law enforcement. Equally, to the extent the "safe
haven" argument seeks to make Canada a safer place by returning to face justice
in a foreign country fugitives who are considered dangerous, citizenship is
irrelevant because the objective is advanced by extraditing Canadian fugitives as
much as it is by extraditing persons of other nationalities.32
43.
It is submitted that the notion that the extradition of fugitives in this classic sense is
amply justified even if they are Canadian citizens reflects the principle that "[0 Jrdinarily people
expect their activities to be governed by the law of the place where they happen to be and expect
that concomitant legal benefits and responsibilities will be defined accordingly.,,33
In the
criminal law context, LeBel J. expressed this principle as follows in R. v. Hape:
As this Court has noted in the past, individuals should expect to be governed by
the laws of the state in which they find themselves and in which they conduct
their financial affairs - it is the individual's decision to go to or operate in another
country that triggers the application of the foreign law [citations omitted].34
44.
Thus, in Hape itself, "since he had chosen to conduct business in Turks and Caicos, the
appellant's reasonable expectation should have been that Turks and Caicos law would apply to
the investigation.,,35 Similarly, in R. v. Terry, it was the accused's decision to flee Canada
(where he was wanted for a murder committed in Prince George, B.C.) and go to California that
32
United States ofAmerica v. Burns. supra, at para. 43.
33
Tolofton v. Jensen; Lucas (Litigation Guardian oj) v. Gagnon, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022.
34
R. v. Hope, 2007 SCC 26, at para. 99.
35
R. v. Hope, supra, at para. 120.
15
triggered the application of the law of California to his questioning by authorities there. 36 Citing
Terry, this Court later held as follows in Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General):
In Terry, supra, McLachlin J. stated that "[pJeople should reasonably expect to be
governed by the laws of the state in which they currently abide, not those of the
state in which they formerly resided or continue to maintain a principal residence"
(para. 24). This rule means that a Canadian residing in a foreign country should
expect his or her privacy to be governed by the laws of that country and, as such,
a reasonable expectation of privacy will generally correspond to the degree of
protection those laws provide. 37
45.
In light of this principle, the fugitive in the extradition context carmot reasonably expect
his or her citizenship to be much if any of a barrier to return to the place where the crime is
alleged to have been committed. The fugitive reasonably expects his or her conduct to be judged
by the laws of the place where it occurred. The case for extradition is even stronger if only the
requesting state has jurisdiction to prosecute the matter. Even the accused in Cotroni could
reasonably expect to have his conduct judged by the laws of the United States. Although
Cotroni had never left Canada while committing the offences with which he was charged, the
evidence was that he was directing criminal activity in the United States from here. As La Forest
J. expressed the point:
The respondents were undoubtedly physically present in Canada when, as it is
alleged, they participated in the acts in respect of which they are charged with the
relevant offences. But the transactions in which they are alleged to have been
engaged in [sicJ were transnational in nature. The allegations are that they were
designed and put into effect in cooperation with associates in the United States to
have impact in that country. As such, the United States, as well as Canada, could
properly exercise jurisdiction in respect of the alleged offences. 38
B)
The Need to Reconsider Cotroni
36
2 S.C.R. 207 at para. 26.
37
Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998]1 S.C.R. 841, at para. 23.
38
United States ojAmerica v. Cotroni, supra, at 1493.
16
46.
While the Minister must not cause an unjustifiable infringement of a person's rights
under the Charter when ordering surrender on an extradition request, it is for the reviewing court
to determine if a breach has occurred and, when it has, to grant the appropriate and just remedy.
Justice Arbour held in United States ofAmerica v. Kwok:
The Minister is required to respect a fugitive's constitutional rights in deciding
whether to exercise his or her discretion to surrender the fugitive to the
Requesting State. But the Minister cannot decide whether a Charter breach has
occurred and, if so, grant the fugitive an appropriate remedy. That function is
judicial, not ministerial.
[... J
The fact that the decision to surrender is an executive one, rather than a judicial
decision, does not exempt that decision from Charter compliance, and an
effective remedy exists, should there be any Charter violation in any part of the
extradition process, in the form of the joint appeal and judicial review in the court
of appeal. 39
47.
It is submitted that the time has come for this Court to reconsider the correctness of the
conclusion in Cotroni that the infringement of s. 6(1) that results from extradition "lies at the
outer edges of the core values sought to be protected by the provision," and limits on that right
are readily justifiable, at least as applied to circumstances such as those presented by the case at
bar. The majority's assessment in Cotroni of the nature of the s. 6(1) infringement and its
justifiability must be examined in light of recent trends in extradition and criminal justice - in
particular, the emergence of sweeping claims by foreign states, especially the United States, of
jurisdiction over the conduct of Canadian citizens within Canadian territory. In short, it is
submitted that the Cotroni analysis (or, at least, how it is being applied by the Minister of
Justice) makes it far too easy to justify what are in fact serious infringements of constitutionally
protected rights.
48.
In United States of America v. Ferras, this Court noted that extradition "constitutes a
serious denial ofliberty and security of the person. A person is taken from Canada and forcibly
39
United States ofAmerica v. Kwok, supra, at 575-576.
17
removed to another country to stand trial according to that other country's rules.,,4o If the person
to be removed is a Canadian citizen, this essential feature of extradition also engages s. 6(1) of
the Charter.
49.
When the person being surrendered is a Canadian citizen, Canada may be the only place
he or she has lived. It may be the only place he or she has family and other forms of support. It
may be the place where evidence relied on by the prosecution was gathered and thus the only
jurisdiction in which the lawfulness of the evidence-gathering may be tested. It may be the place
where witnesses or other evidence essential to defending the charge are to be found.
50.
Not only would the person being surrendered stand trial according to the other country's
rules of criminal procedure, which may be entirely different from Canada's, if convicted he or
she would be sentenced according to the law of the foreign state. Particularly where it is the
United States that has requested extradition, sentences are typically much longer than would be
the case for comparable conduct prosecuted in Canada. Foreign sentences, especially sentences
in the United States, can be so lengthy as to be tantamount to de facto banishment fi'om Canada.
51.
Although it is true that a Canadian citizen who is sentenced in a foreign state may apply
to serve that sentence in Canada if Canada and the foreign state are parties to an international
agreement providing for such transfers, there is no "right" to have one's sentence transferred.
Both the foreign state and Canada must approve the transfer, and each has a broad discretion to
41
refuse transfers.
52.
Where the connection of the impugned conduct to Canada is strong because of the
citizenship of the accused and the locus of the conduct and where the foreign claim of
jurisdiction is weak by Canadian lights, it is submitted that the principle that "[0 ]rdinarily people
expect their activities to be governed by the law of the place where they happen to be and expect
that concomitant legal benefits and responsibilities will be defined accordingly" makes the
40
United States ofAmerica v. Fen'as, supra, at para. 12.
See, for example, the Treaty between Canada and the United States ofAmerica on the Execution ofPenal
Sentences (CTS 1978 No. 12) and the International Transfer of Offenders Act, s. 8 (S.C. 2004, c.21)
41
18
infringement of s. 6(1) more serious and, accordingly, more difficult to justify under s. 1 of the
Charter.
53.
Under the Oakes test, when a protected right is infringed, the government must justify the
infringement by identifying a pressing and substantial objective, demonstrating that there is a
rational connection between the objective and the infringement of the right and showing that the
means adopted interferes as little as possible with the right and that the salutary effects of the
measure outweigh its deleterious effects.42
54.
It is submitted that the principal objective served by surrender on an extradition request is
the trial of criminal charges on their merits. 43 There is no question that this is a pressing and
substantial objective. However, other objectives said to be served by the extradition process - for
example, mutual cooperation in the fight against crime, fulfilling Canada's international
obligations and maintaining good relations with foreign governments - are surely secondary. If
surrender will not promote the objective of having a criminal charge determined on its merits,
then it is unjustifiable, no matter how much it may promote some other objectives.
55.
Conversely, it is submitted that where refusing sUlTender would not frustrate the goal of
ensuring that those accused of serious wrongdoing are brought to trial - for example, because
Canada is also capable of prosecuting the matter - then extradition is an unjustifiable limitation
on the right guaranteed by s. 6(1) of the Charter because the measure does not interfere with the
right as little as possible and its deleterious effects outweigh its salutary effects. 44
56.
Often there will be no question as to the reasonableness of the limit on the s. 6(1) right
since there can be no doubt as to the interest of the requesting state in prosecuting the matter and
there is no basis for a prosecution in Canada as an alternative to extradition.
42
43
Sometimes,
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 2, at para. 64.
United States a/America v. Cotroni, supra, at 1487.
44 It bears noting that this Court's approach to the Oakes test, especially the final step of assessing salutary and
deleterious effects, has become much more nuanced since Cotroni was decided. See, for example, Alberta v.
Hutterian Brethren a/Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37 at paras. 72-78, and Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada
(Attorney General), 2011 sec 2, at para. 87.
19
however, the justifiability of extradition will be less evident such as when, as in the case at bar,
both Canada and the requesting state have jurisdiction to prosecute the offence and the
connection to the requesting State is debatable at best.
Justice La Forest held in Cotroni that, in determining whether a Canadian should be
57.
prosecuted in Canada or abroad, Canadian authorities
[... J must give due weight to the constitutional right of a citizen to remain in
Canada. They must in good faith direct their minds to whether prosecution would
be equally effective in Canada, given the existing domestic laws and intemational
cooperative arrangements. They have an obligation flowing from s. 6(1) to assure
themselves that prosecution in Canada is not a realistic option. 45
58.
If prosecution in Canada is a "realistic option", then surrender for prosecution elsewhere
is an unjustifiable limitation on s. 6(1) of the Charter: the objective of trying a criminal charge
on its merits can be achieved without limiting s. 6(1) rights in any way.
59.
The pertinent considerations that inform a decision as to whether to prosecute a matter
domestically or grant a request for the extradition of a Canadian citizen when both Canada and
the requesting State have jurisdiction to prosecute are a summarized by La Forest J. in Cotroni:
In practice, the decision whether to prosecute, or not to prosecute in this country
and allow the authorities in another conntry to seek extradition, is made following
consultations between the appropriate authorities in the two countries. The
factors that will usually affect such a decision were recently considered by
Hanssen J. in Swystun [... J. These factors include:
where was the impact of the offence felt or likely to have been felt;
which jurisdiction has the greater interest in prosecuting the offence;
which police force played the major role in the development of the case;
which jurisdiction has laid charges;
which jurisdiction has the most comprehensive case;
which jurisdiction is ready to proceed to trial;
4S
United States ofAmerica v. Cotroni, supra, at 1498.
20
where is the evidence located;
whether the evidence is mobile;
the number of accused involved and whether they can be gathered together in
one place for trial;
in what jurisdiction were most of the acts in furtherance of the crime
committed;
the nationality and residence of the accused;
the severity of the sentence the accused
jurisdiction.46
60.
IS
likely to receive
III
each
Moreover, Article 17 bis of the Treaty on Extradition between Canada and the United
States of America (adopted January 11, 1988) reserves to the parties the right to decline to
extradite a person in favour of a domestic prosecution in circumstances where both contracting
parties have jurisdiction to prosecute the matter. The Minister is called upon to balance the
respective interests of Canada and the United States in determining whether to grant the request
for extradition. The Minister is directed by Article 17 bis to consider "all relevant factors",
including but not limited to:
the place where the act was committed or intended to be committed or the
injury occurred or was intended to occur;
the respective interests of the Contracting Parties;
the nationality of the victim or intended victim; and
the availability and location of the evidence.
61.
In Lake v. Canada (Minister of Justice), this Court held with respect to the Cotroni
factors:
46 United States ofAmerica v. Cotroni, supra, at 1498-99; Lake v. Canada (Minister ofJustice), supra, at paras.
27-30. The concern expressed by Sopinka J. in his dissenting judgment in Cotroni <at 1518-19) that this "practice"
did not amount to a limit "prescribed by law" does not appear to have been addressed by the majority.
21
How relevant each of these factors is to the determination of the appropriate
jurisdiction for prosecution may vary from case to case. Nothing in Cotroni
suggests that these factors should be given equal weight or precludes a conclusion
that a single factor is determinative in a particular case. The list merely identifies
some of the factors that will tend to favour either extradition or prosecution in
Canada. To instruct prosecutorial authorities on how to decide whether to
prosecute would deprive the concept of prosecutorial discretion of all meaning.
The responsibility for deciding which factors are determinative lies with the
authorities themselves; the list serves simply to highlight the relevant factors. 47
62.
The Minister, of course, is not exercising prosecutorial discretion when he renders a
decision on surrender.
Rather, he is relying on the result of the exercise of prosecutorial
discretion by others (in this case, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada) in making his own
determination as to whether surrender is justifiable. While the Minister's decision necessarily
involves a fresh assessment of the Cotroni factors, as will be seen below, in the cases at bar he
attributes significant weight to the result of the initial Cotroni assessments in deciding that the
surrender of the Appellant and Mr. Nadarajah is justified.
63.
It may also be significant that at the time Cotroni was decided, the "authorities"
responsible for deciding whether to pursue a Canadian prosecution or not were the Attorney
General of Canada or of a province, as the case may be. 48 In matters falling under federal
jurisdiction, this decision was rendered by the Minister of Justice him or herself qua Attorney
General of Canada so there could be no question that he or she was aware of all relevant
considerations that informed the decision. Now, however, these decisions are generally made by
officials within the Public Prosecution Service of Canada acting under the Director of Public
Prosecutions, as was in fact the case here. 49
C)
The Requirements of Procedural Fairness
47
Lake v. Canada (Minister ofJustice), supra, at para. 30.
48
United States ofAmerica v. Cotroni, supra, at 1497.
49
See s. 3(3) of the Director ofPublic Prosecutions Act, S.c. 2006, c. 9, s. 121.
22
64.
While the ultimate decision on surrender is subject to a deferential standard of review, it
is submitted that the Minister is nevettheless under a legal duty, arising both at common law and
under the Charter, to act in a procedurally fair manner in rendering the surrender decision. As
Cromwell J. held in Nemeth v. Canada (Justice), since the exercise of the Minister's power to
surrender implicates the liberty and in some cases the security of the person sought, "the Minister
owes a duty of fairness both at common law and in accordance with the principles of
fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter."so The precise ambit of the duty of fairness at the
surrender phase of the extradition process has not been defined by this Court.
65.
This Court has observed on several occasions that s. 7 of the Charter does not guarantee
a particular type of process for all situations where a person's liberty or security of the person is
affected. It guarantees a fair process having regard to the nature of the proceedings at issue.
Thus, as the Court stated in Ferras, the true principle that emerges from the history of extradition
and the test for committal is that a person is not to be extradited without a fair process, having
regard to the history, purposes and policies that underlie extradition. 51
66.
The nature and extent of the duty of procedural fairness is also a function of the relative
importance of the decision to the individual affected. 52 As discussed above, in the extradition
context, the surrender decision is obviously one of great impottance for the individual.
In
addition to the direct personal impact of surrender, facing prosecution in a foreign state for
conduct that occun'ed entirely in Canada and which has only an incidental connection to the
foreign state claiming jurisdiction to prosecute it is contrary to the legitimate expectation that
one's conduct will be judged by the law of the place where one has chosen to be.
50
Nemeth v. Canada (Justice), 2010 SCC 56, at para. 70.
S! United States o[America v. Fen'as, [2006]2 S.C.R. 77 at paras. 14 and 19; Kindler v. Canada (Minister o[
Justice), [1991]2 S.C.R. 779 at 844 and 848; Nemeth v. Canada (Justice), supra, at paras. 64-65; Idziak v. Canada
(Minister o[Justice), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 631, at 654-57; United States o[America v. Dynar, [1997]2 S.C.R. 462, at
paras. 128-29.
Suresh v. Canada (Minister o[Citizenship and Immigration), [2002]1 S.C.R. 3 at para. 118; Baker v. Canada
(Minister o[Citizenship and Immigration), [1999]2 S.C.R. 817 at 837-41.
52
23
67.
It is submitted that the duty of procedural fairness at the surrender stage entails, among
other things, that the person sought for extradition is entitled to disclosure of the case against him
or her; that the Minister must provide the person sought with a reasonable opportunity to respond
to that case; that the Minister must provide the person sought with a reasonable opportunity to
state his or her own case; that the Minister must give due consideration to all relevant factors in
deciding whether to surrender; and that the Minister must give sufficient reasons for the decision
to sUlTender, which includes responding to any submissions against surrender made by the
individual and explaining why he disagrees. A failure to meet the requirements of procedural
fairness provides a basis for intervention on judicial review both in the exercise of original
Charter jurisdiction and under s. 18.1(4)(b) of the Federal Courts Act (as incorporated by s.
57(7) of the Extradition Act).53
68.
It is submitted that no deference is owed to the Minister on the requirements of
procedural fairness. Whatever the Minister may decide procedural fairness requires, the Court
has the final word; the Court reviews this decision on a correctness standard. 54
69.
Given the centrality of the "Cotroni analysis" by prosecutorial authorities to the
constitutionality of the surrender of a Canadian citizen where Canada has jurisdiction to
prosecute the conduct, it is submitted that the duty of procedural fairness requires the Minister to
obtain the assessment, to disclose it to the person sought, to provide the person sought with an
opportunity to make submissions concerning it, to take those submissions into account in
deciding whether to order surrender and to provide reasons that are responsive to the objections
raised to surrender. Otherwise, the right of a person sought for extradition to argne that, in his or
her particular case, surrender is unjustified would be rendered illusory.
Lake v. Canada (Minister ofJustice), supra, at para. 25; United States ofAmerica v. Whitley (1994), 94 C.C.C.
(3d) 99 at 112-13 (Ont. C.A.); affd [1996]1 S.C.R. 467; United States ofAmerica v. Johnson (2002),170 C.C.C.
(3d) 327 at 335-36 (Ont. C.A.); United States ofAmerica v. Tcrylor (2003), 175 C.C.C. (3d) 185 at 190-92
(B.C.C.A.)
53
54 Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at paras. 41-51; Canadian Union of Public
Employees (c. UP.E.) v. Ontario (Minister ofLabour), [2003]1 S.C.R. 539 at paras. 100 and 102-03; Kinsella v.
Canada (Minister ofJustice), 2007 NBCA 78 at paras. 25-26
24
70.
It is submitted that the Minister denied the Appellant and Mr. Nadarajah procedural
fairness in refusing to obtain and disclose the Cotroni assessments prepared by the Public
Prosecution Service of Canada in their respective cases. There can be no question that the
assessments are relevant:
the Minister himself places great weight on the results of the
assessments (namely, that extradition was to be preferred to domestic prosecution). No claim of
privilege is made over them. The Minister has relied on a key factor to which the Appellant and
Mr. Nadarajah had no opportunity to respond.
71.
In the Summary of the Case and Submissions dated September 23, 2009, the Appellant
was advised that counsel at the Public Prosecution Service of Canada in the Ontario Regional
Office had reviewed the case using the criteria set out in Cotroni. Those criteria were simply
listed in the Summary, without any indication as to what information was considered in relation
to each or whether it weighed for or against prosecution in Canada. The Appellant was then
advised only that counsel for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada had concluded that his
prosecution in Canada "for the offence in question would not be 'equally effective' and that the
Cotroni factors weigh in favour of [his] prosecution in the United States."ss
72.
The Appellant and Mr. Nadarajah requested disclosure of their respective Cotroni
assessments, including all information relied upon in the assessments. The Minister refused
these requests, stating the following in his reasons for surrender concerning the Appellant:
You also request disclosure of the Cotroni assessment that was conducted in relation
to this matter by the relevant Canadian prosecuting authority, including all
information relied upon in that assessment. As indicated above, Mr. Sriskandaraj ah
has been provided with all of the materials which I have considered in making my
decision on surrender with the exception of legal advice. In that regard, I can advise
you that I have not been provided with a copy of the Cotroni assessment. Rather, like
Mr. Sriskandarajah, I have been provided with the Summary of the Case and
Submissions dated September 23, 2009, which includes the conclusion of the
Canadian prosecuting authorities that prosecution in Canada would not be "equally
effective" to a prosecution in the United States.
Since Mr. Nadarajah is adopting the Appellant's submissions in this regard, it bears noting that the corresponding
part of his Summary ofthe Case and Submissions is worded virtually identically. See the Summary ofthe Case and
Submissions re Nadarajah (October \5,2009) at pp. 5-6: J.A.R., Vol. II, p. 1146-147.
55
25
[... J
The decision whether to prosecute an offence is a matter of prosecutorial discretion
and is reviewable only on very nan-ow grounds, specifically, where bad faith
attributable to the Crown has been clearly demonstrated (United States v. Whitley,
supra, and R. v. Power (1994), 89 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.c.). I note that you are not
suggesting any bad faith on the part of the Crown, nor is there any evidence of this in
the information before me.
As stated above, I have an obligation to determine whether surrender is a reasonable
limit on Mr. Sriskandarajah's section 6 Charter rights. In doing so, I must consider
the factors set out in United States v. Cotroni, [1989 1 S.C.R. 1469, including whether
charges have been, or will be laid in Canada. I am mindful, however, that while this
is an important consideration, it is just one of many relevant factors. I have
conducted my own analysis of the Cotroni factors bearing in mind all of the materials
before me, including your submissions on this issue. Therefore, you may be satisfied
that my decision is a fully considered one.
Insofar as you have the right to apply to judicially review my decision with respect to
surrender, you must be provided with all of the materials I have considered. You
have no similar right to appeal from the exercise of prosecutorial discretion involved
in the decision to prosecute or not to prosecute in Canada. In my view, therefore,
disclosure of the Cotroni assessment prepared by the Canadian prosecuting authority
is not necessary to satisfy Mr. Sriskandarajah's right to procedural fairness in this
matter. 56
73.
In determining that the surrender of the Appellant (and Mr. Nadarajah) was a justifiable
limit on rights guaranteed by s. 6(1) of the Charter, the Minister placed considerable weight on
the conclusion of the Cotroni assessments by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. He
noted with respect to the Appellant that in Canada "no charges have been laid against Mr.
Sriskandarajah and none are contemplated." He added: "The important principle of international
law that a state should extradite unless it can prosecute the offence itself must be considered in
determining whether extradition would violate Mr. Sriskandarajah's section 6(1) Charter rights."
With respect to Article 17 bis of the Treaty, the Minister stated that it
[... J neither
limits nor alters my discretion to order surrender. In this case, no
charges have been laid against Mr. Sriskandarajah in Canada concerning the
conduct that is the subject of the extradition request. Given that it would not be
56 Minister's Reasons on Surrender re Sriskandarajah (November 17,2009) at pp. 3-4: J.A.R., Vol. I, pp. 50-51;
see also Minister's Reasons on Surrender re Nadarajah (November 17, 2009) at pp. 3-4: J.A.R., Vol. I., pp. 58-59.
26
appropriate for me to direct the relevant investigative authorities to lay charges,
prosecution in Canada is not currently possible. 57
Minister's Reasons on Surrender re Sriskandarajah (November 17,2009) at pp. 7-8: J.A.R., Vol. I, pp. 54-55.
Again, except for the discussion of Article 17 bis of the Treaty, essentially identical language was used to explain
the decision with respect to Mr. Nadarajah: see Minister's Reasons for Surrender re Nadarajah (November 17,2009)
at p.6: J.A.R., Vol. I, p. 61.
57
27
74.
It is submitted that the Minister failed to understand the relevance of the content of the
original Cotroni assessments and, as a result, erred both in refusing to consider the assessments
themselves and in refusing to disclose it to them to the Appellant and Mr. Nadarajah,
respectively.
75.
The Minister suggests that the Cotroni assessments could only be relevant to review of
prosecutorial discretion, either by the Minister himself or by the Court of Appeal on judicial
review, and asserts that the high threshold for such a review has not been met. However, the
potential relevance of the Cotroni assessments is not limited to this issue. Rather, the Minister
must understand the basis for the conclusion of the Cotroni assessment in order to appreciate the
significance of the conclusion that charges in Canada "are not contemplated" for his own Cotroni
analysis.
76.
In Cotroni, La Forest 1. noted that "[i]n the absence of proceedings against the accused in
this country, Canada is under an international obligation to surrender a person accused of having
committed a crime listed in an extradition treaty if it meets the requirements of the treaty, in
particular presenting sufficient evidence before a judge to satisfy the requirements of a prima
facie case. ,,58
77.
However, the decision not to proceed with charges in Canada could be made for a variety
of reasons ranging from it being impossible to prosecute the offence in Canada (e.g., because the
conduct was not criminal in Canada when it occurred or because the necessary evidence is not
available to Canadian prosecutors) to deference to the foreign state, which simply happened to
move first to prosecute a matter that could also be prosecuted in Canada. If the decision not to
prosecute in Canada was made because such a prosecution is impossible, that is a factor that
strongly favours extradition.
58
United States ofAmerica v. Cotroni, supra, at 1499-1500
28
78.
On the other hand, if the decision not to prosecute in Canada was made because the
person has been charged in a foreign jurisdiction and his or her extradition has been or will be
requested, for the Minister to rely simply on the conclusion of the Cotroni assessment as a factor
favouring surrender is to beg the very question at issue. The Minister must know why the
decision not to prosecute in Canada was made in order to appreciate whether Canadian charges
could be prosecuted effectively in the event that extradition was refused.
Otherwise the
purported justification for surrender is simply circular: in Canada, no charges have been laid
against the Appellant and none are contemplated because his extradition has been requested and
surrender is justified because no charges have been laid in Canada. 59
79.
Similarly, while the Minister states that prosecution in Canada "is not currently possible"
because "it would not be appropriate for me to direct the relevant investigative authorities to lay
charges," this too simply begs the question. Presumably those authorities in the exercise of their
own discretion would be prepared to look at the issue afresh in the event that extradition was
refused. This factor simply cannot bear the weight the Minister attributes to it without more
information about the Cotroni assessment itself.
80.
Among the Catrani factors said to have been considered by the PPSC is "which
jurisdiction has the greater interest in prosecuting the offence." This is a critical question in the
circumstances of the Appellant's case, where the basis for the American claim of jurisdiction is
not apparent. However, nothing the Appellant received by way of disclosure or in the Minister's
reasons sheds any light on how this factor was analyzed or what weight was attributed to it. The
Minister does not address the Appellant's specific concerns about the U.S. claim of jurisdiction
or explain why he takes a different view. 6o Absent a claim of jurisdiction that is superior to
Canada's, the involvement of U.S. law enforcement agencies (a factor relied on heavily by the
Minister and the Court of Appeal) is simply beside the point. In any event, those agencies would
presumably be willing to cooperate with a Canadian prosecution if it meant seeing criminal
charges determined on their merits.
" Minister's Reasons on Surrender re Sriskandarajah (November 17,2009), at p. 7: J.A.R., Vol. I, p. 54.
60
Lake v. Canada (Minister ofJustice), supra, at para. 25.
29
81.
Canada has jurisdiction to prosecute the Appellant. 61 The evidence against the Appellant
appears to be primarily documentary and presumably can easily be made available for Canadian
prosecution. Some of the evidence was even gathered in Canada by Canadian law enforcement
in a search of the Appellant's home in Waterloo, Ontario. (The lawfulness of this evidencegathering has never been determined by a Canadian court. At the extradition hearing, the
Attorney General of Canada opted not to rely on any of that evidence in seeking committal. The
United States, however, has not provided any assurance that it will not rely on the fruits of that
search in seeking the Appellant's conviction. No U.S. court can determine whether that evidence
was gathered in accordance with Canadian law.)
82.
Neither the disclosure provided to the Appellant nor the Minister's reasons contain any
examination Canada's capacity to mount an effective prosecution in the event that charges were
laid here. The simple fact that no charges against the Appellant or Mr. Nadarajah in Canada are
"contemplated" cannot reasonably support the conclusion that sunender is a justifiable limit on
their rights under s. 6(1) of the Charter.
83.
Finally, he Minister must also consider and disclose the original Cotroni assessment
because the information on which it is based may be outdated by the time the matter comes
before the Minister. The Appellant was arrested on the extradition request on August 21, 2006.
The Minister did not render his decision on sunender until November 17, 2009. Relevant
circumstances may well have changed between the time of the Cotroni assessment (whenever
that was) and the time of the sunender decision. Changes in circumstances can affect the weight
the Minister should give the Cotroni assessment by the PPSC. This is not a merely theoretical
possibility.
Subsequent to the sunender decision, the Appellant's co-accused in the United
States pleaded guilty, thereby removing a factor that may once have favoured sunender. 62
See Libman v. The Queen, [1985]2 S.C.R. 178 at paras. 61-79, interpreting, inter alia, what is now s.6(2) of the
Criminal Code.
61
62
F.B.I. Press Release dated February 8, 2012: J.A.R., Vol. II, p. 217.
30
D)
The Surrender Decision is Unreasonable
84.
It is submitted that, in the absence of the information contained in the original Cotroni
assessment, the surrender decision is unreasonable and was not made on the basis of all relevant
information.
85.
While the Minister may not be required to provide a detailed analysis of every factor
bearing on his own Cotroni assessment in his reasons for surrender, it is submitted that he must
consider all relevant factors. 63
86.
Crucially, there is no indication in his reasons or in any material disclosed to the
Appellant of why the United States has a valid claim to prosecute him, let alone a greater interest
in prosecuting him than Canada does, and to which Canada should defer. In the circumstances of
the Appellant's case, the Minister's failure to address the American assertion of jurisdiction and
to determine on a complete record why a prosecution in Canada would not be equally effective
are key omissions that leave the Appellant uninformed as to why he is being extradited and the
court on judicial review unable to determine whether the Minister has made reviewable error or
unjustifiably infringed the Appellant's rights under s. 6(1) of the Charter.
87.
While the Minister notes that all of the Appellant's conduct occurred in Canada, its
effects, "when considered in concert with the alleged actions of his many co-conspirators, would
have been felt in jurisdictions outside of Canada." Significantly, however, there is no suggestion
that those effects would have been felt in the United States. 64
88.
The charges against the Appellant (and Mr. Nadarajah) appear to have had their genesis
in a U.S. investigation, a fact relied on by the Minister and the Court of Appeal. However, much
of the conduct described in the Record of the Case in support of the Appellant's extradition
63
Lake, supra, at paras. 46-48.
The same applies to Mr. Nadarajah, whose conduct was limited to Canada, having been denied entry into the
United States. Similarly, the weapons that were the subject matter of the meeting with the undercover agents were
allegedly going to be delivered for use in Sri Lanka.
64
31
otherwise appears to have no apparent connection whatsoever to the United States. The marine
design software described in paragraph 8( c) of the Record of the Case was to come from the
United Kingdom. The attempt to purchase night-vision equipment was made with respect to a
company in British Columbia (Record of the Case, para. 8(g)). The Appellant indicated to the
Minister that the person said to be an employee at Raytheon Aircraft Company described in
paragraph 8(b) of the Record of the Case was located at the Canadian office of that company.
There is no evidence of any connection whatsoever between the United States and the towers or
tower-related equipment described in paragraph 8(a) of the Record of the Case, or the goods
described in paragraph 8(g) of the Record of the Case. While it is alleged that other goods were
sent to the Appellant in Canada from the United States (see Record of the Case, para.8(e)), there
is no evidence that the Appellant had anything to do with the procurement of the items, that he
ever received them or, indeed, that these goods had any connection whatsoever to the LTTE.
89.
It is submitted that the only conduct with any discernible connection to the United States
is that described in paragraph 9 of the Record of the Case. Even there, the only link to the
United States is the location of some of the bank accounts involved and the travel agent. While
the Record of the Case introduces this transaction by alleging that the Appellant was "actively
engaged in money laundering for the LTTE," there is no evidence as to the source of funds
described in paragraph 9, nor is there any evidence as to whether the plane tickets were ever
purchased or for whom. In any event, it is submitted that the connection ofthis u·ansaction to the
United States is simply incidental and gave the United States no greater interest in prosecuting
the matter than Canada would have. This is a critical issue in the Appellant's case. It was
essential for the Appellant to have full disclosure of matters bearing upon it and it was incumbent
upon the Minister to address it in his reasons for surrender.
90.
The Appellant submits that, having regard to all the relevant considerations, the
Minister's conclusion that surrender would not unjustifiably limit the Appellant's s.6(1) rights is
unreasonable. Mr. Nadarajah advances the same submission. Further, the Minister's analysis of
the justifiability of surrender is fundamentally flawed because the Minister denied both the
Appellant and Mr. Nadarajah procedural fairness and failed to take into account relevant and
32
material considerations. The Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Minister's decisions on the
Appellant's and Mr. Nadarajah's applications for judicial review.
33
PART IV - SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING COSTS
91.
The Appellant makes no submissions as to costs.
PART V - ORDERS SOUGHT
92.
The Appellant joins Mr. Nadarajah in seeking the relief set out in Part V of his factum.
93.
In addition, the Appellant respectfully requests that his appeal be allowed, and the order
for his surrender dated November 17, 2009 be quashed.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
D ATE D this 22 nd day of February, 2012.
JOHN NORRIS
BRYDIE BETHELL
34
PART VI - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cited at para(s).
Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37
55
Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817
66
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12
68
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 2
53,55
Canadian Union ofPublic Employees (c. U.P.E.) v. Ontario (Minister ofLabour),
[2003] 1 S.C.R. 539
68
Idziak v. Canada (Minister ofJustice), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 631
65
Kindler v. Canada (Minister ofJustice), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779
65
Kinsella v. Canada (Minister ofJustice), 2007 NBCA 78
68
Lake v. Canada (Minister ofJustice), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 761
59,61,67,80,85
Libman v. The Queen, [1985]2 S.C.R. 178
81
Neelyv. Henkel (No.1) [180 U.S. 109 (1901)]
40
Nemeth v. Canada (Justice), 2010 SCC 56
64,65
R. v. Hape, 2007 SCC 26
43, 44
R. v. Terry, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 207
44
Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 841
44
Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.c.R. 3
66
Tolofton v. Jensen; Lucas (Litigation Guardian of) v. Gagnon, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022
43
United States ofAmerica v. Burns, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283
United States ofAmerica v. Cotroni, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1469
United States ofAmerica v. Dynar, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 462
United States ofAmerica v. Perras, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 77
41,42
36 - 39, 45, 54, 57, 59, 63, 76
65
48,65
35
United States ofAmerica v. Johnson (2002), 170 C.C.C. (3d) 538 (Ont. C.A.)
United States ofAmerica v. Kwok, [2001]1 S.C.R. 532
67
3,37,46
United States ofAmerica v. Taylor (2003), 175 C.C.C. (3d) 185 (B.C.C.A.)
67
United States ofAmerica v. Whitley (1994), 94 C.C.c. (3d) 99 (Ont. C.A.);
affd [1996]1 S.C.R. 467
67
Secondary Sources
La Forest, Anne Warner, La Forest's Extradition to andfrom Canada (3rd ed.)
(Aurora, Ont.: Canada Law Book, 1991)
40
36
PART VII - STATUATORY INSTRUMENTS
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 15, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being
Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11, ss. 2(b), 6(1), 7
Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 83.01(1), 83.03, 83.18, 83.21
Director ofPublic Prosecution Act, S.C. 2006, c. 9, s. 121
Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18, ss. 44(1)(a), 57(7)
International
Tran~fer
of Offenders Act, S.C. 2004, c. 21, s. 8
Treaty between Canada and the United States ofAmerica of the Execution ofPenal Sentences
(CTS 1978 No. 12)
II
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982·'
PART I
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and
the rule oflaw:
Guarantee ofRights ond Freedoms
RiSblSllnd
rreedollls in
Can~da
1. The Canadian Charter ofRights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set
out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably
justified in a free and democratic society.
Fundamental Freedoms
Fundamenl31
ITccdoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) fi-eedol1l of thought, belief, opini"QRand~~xpress,io.n,".incLuding freedoll1.,of~the.,press"-·"
and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of 3.ssociation.
Democratic Rights
Democratic
righls ofcitiz.ens
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House
of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membelShip therein.
(S~) Enacted as Schedule B totbe Canada Act 1982, (U.K.) 1982, c.ll, which came into force on April 17, 1982.
The Canada Act 1982, other than Schedules A and B thereto, reads as follows:
An Act to give effectto a request by the Senate and House of Commons of Canada
Whereas Canada has requested and consented to the enactment of an Act of tile Parliament of tile United Kingdom to give
effOCI to the provisioll$hereinafter set forth and the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled
have submitted an address to Her Majesty requesting that Her Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a Bill to be laid
before the Parliamentcfthe United Kingdom for that purpose.
Be it therefore enadl:d by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the· advice and consent oflhe Lords Spiritual
and Temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the aUlhorily ofthe same, as follows:
1. The ConslitutiollAct, /982 set out in Sc1ledule B to this Act is hereby enacted for and shall have the force of law in
Canada and shall come into force as provided in that Act
2. No Act oflile Parliament of the United Kingdom passed ~r the Constitution Act. 1982 comes into force shall extend
part of its law.
10 Canada as
3. So far as it is notQ)ntained in Schedule B, the French version of this Actis set out in Schedule A to this Act and has the
same authority in Catlllda as the English version thereof.
4. This Act may J>ecited as the Canada Act 1982.
,
38
I
!
I
'!
i
ANNEXEB
I
LOI CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1982
PARTIE I
CHARTE CANADIENNE DES DROITS ET LlBERTES
Attendu que Ie Canada est fonde sur des principes qui reconnaissent Ja suprematie de
Dieu 'et la primaute du droit:
Garantie des droUs et libertes
:
I
I. La Charle cani:ldienne des droits el libertes garantit les droits et libertos qui y sont
enonces. lIs ne peuvent etre restreints que par une regIe d~ droit, dans des Hmites qui soient
raisonnables et dont lajustification puisse se d6montrer dans Ie cadre d'une societe libre et
democratique.
!
Droits et liberte~
IlU Canada
Libertes fondamentales
I
I I
2. Chacun ales libertes fondamentales suivantes ;
Libertes
fondamtnlales
a) Iiberte de conscience et de religion;
b) liberte de pensee, de croyance, d'opiniol1 et d'expression, y compris la libert!!: de la
presse et des autres moyens de communication;
c) libel1e de reunion pacifique;
d) liberte d'association.
Droits democratiques
3. Tout citoyen canadien a Ie droit de vote et est eligible, aux eJections legisiatives federales au provinciales.
Droits
demoemtiques
des ciloytnS
4. (1) Le mandat maximal de la Chambre des communes et des assemblees legislatives
est de cinq ans a campter de la date fixee pour Ie retour des brefs relatifs aux ejections
Mandat maximal
de$ assembUcs
generales correspondantes.(lI)
(2) Le mandaI de la Chambre des communes ou celui d'une assemblee legislative peut
etre prolonge respectivement par Ie Parlement au par la 1egislature en question au-dela de
cinq ans en cas de guerre, d'invasion au d'insurrection, reelies ou apprehendees, pourvu que
cette prolongation ne fasse pas 1'objet d'une opposition exprimee par les voix de plus du
Prolongations
sptciales
tiers des deputes de laCharnbre des communes au de l'assembloe legislative.""
5. Le Parlement et les legislatures tiennent une seance au moins une fois taus les douze
mois.{!l}
{Sl)
SeanCe annucllo
Voir )'article 50 de la Loi constitu'tio1Jnelie de 1867 et les notes relatives sux articles 85 et 88 de cette Joi.
Remplace en partie la categorie 1 de I'a~ticle 91 de la Loi constituiionnelle de 1867, qUi a ete abrogee comme
I'indique Ie paragraphe 1(3) de rannexe de la presente loi. '
(il)
,(iJ)
Voir les notes relatives sux articles 20, 86 et 88 de la Lai cansiituiionnelle de 1867. '
2
39
i
II
I
i
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mro;imum
dUrillion of
legislative
bodies
4. (I) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shalI continue for longer than
five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its mem
bers.wl )
Continuation in
(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons
may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years jf such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than
one-third ofthe members ofthe House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case
~peeilll
circumsl:mces
w
maybe.(IIl)
Annual 5ilting of
legislative
bodies
.
5. There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least onCe every twelve
months.(I/J)
Mobility Rights
Mobility of
citizens
Rights to move
nndgain
livelihood
6. (I) Every citizen of Canada has the rightto enter, remain in and leave Canada,
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident
of Canada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining ofa livelihood in any province.
Ul11itnlillll
(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
(a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those
that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previolls
residence; and
I
I
I
(b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the
receipt of publicly provided social services.
Affirmmi\'c
nClion programs
1
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its
object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are
socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below
the rate of employment in Canada.
Legal Rights
Life, liberty and
security of
person
7. Everyone has the right!o life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be
deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Search or$clturo
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Detention or
imprisonment
9. EVeryone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
Arrest or
JO. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
detention
{Ill)
See section 50 and the footnotes to sections 85 and 88 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
\lIl) Replaces part of Class 1 afsection 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which was repealed as set Qut in subitem
. 1(3) ofthe Schedule to this Act.
(33)
See the footnotes to sections 20, 86 and 88 of the Constitution At!, 1867.
2
40
I
[
Liberte de circulation et d 'etablissement
6. (I) Tout citoyen canadien ale droit de demeurer au Canada, d'y entrer au d'en sartir.
(2) Tout citoyen canadien et toute personne ayant Ie statut de resident pennanent au
Canada ont Ie droit:
Libertede
circuJo.lioll
Libened't!lablis·
semcnt
a) de se deplacer dans tout Ie pays et d'etabJir leur residence dans toute province;
b) de gagner leur vie dans toute province.
(3) Les droits mentionnes au paragraphe (2) sont subordonnes :
Restriction
a) aux lois et usages d'application generale en vigueur dans une province donnee, s'iJs
n'etablissent entre les personnes aucune distinction fondee principalement sur la province
de residence anterieure ou actuelle;
b) aUK lois prevoyant dejustes conditions de residence en vue de I'obtention des services
sociaux publics.
(4) Les paragraphes (2) et (3) n'ont pas pour objet d'interdire les lois, programmes ou
activites destines aameIiorer, dans une province, la situation d'inrlividus defavorises sociaIernent ou economiquement, si Ie taux d'empioi dans la province est inferieur ala moyenne
nationale.
I
Pro!;rammes de
Pfomotion
soci~11l
Garanlies jllridiques
7. ChacLln a droit aJa vie, ala liberte et ala secLlrite de sa persanne; il ne peut etre porte
atteinte ace droit qu'en confonnite avec les principes de justice fondamentale.
8. Chacun a droit a la protection
I
c~ntre
les fauilIes, les perquisitions ou les saisies abu-
sives.
9. Chacun a droit ala protection contre la detention ou l'emprisonnement arbitraires.
] O. Chacun ;;t Ie droit, en cas d'arrestation au de detention:
Vie, liber\': el
sceurilc
Fouilles.
pcrquisi(ions ou
saisi«
Dtlen(ion ou
ernprisonllcmenl
Arrestation au
~Ienlion
a) d'etre informedans les plus brefs delais des motifs deson arrestation ou desad6tention;
b) d'avoir recours sans d6lai aPassistance d'un avocat et d'etre informe de ce droit;
c) de faire contrOler, par habeas corpus, la legalite de sa detention et d'obtenir, Ie cas
echeant, sa liberation.
11. Tout inculpe a Ie droit:
Affitiru
crimim:lles 1:1:
penales
a) d'etre infonne sans d6lai anormal de l'infraction precise qu'on lui reproche;
b)
d'~trejuge
dans un delai raisonnable;
c) de ne pas etre contraint de temoigner contre lui-merne dans toute poursuite intentee
contre lui pour l'infraction qU'on lui reproche;
d) d'~tre presume innocenttant qu'i1 n'est pas declare coupable, confonnement it la loi,
par un tribunal independant et impartial it I'issue d'un proces public et equitable;
I
I
·1
I
3
.
41
CANADA
CONSOLIDAnON
CODIFICAnON
Criminal Code
Code criminel
CHAPTER C-46
CHAPITRE C-46
Current to August 24, 2010
A. jour au 24 aout 2010
Published by the Minister of Justice at the following address:
http://laws-Iois.justice.gc.ca
Publie par Ie ministre de la Justice a l'adresse suivante :
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca
42
Code cl'iminel- 24 aoiit 2010
ture of a province for the contl'Ol of sport within
the province, shall be deemed not to be a prize
tight.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 83; RS., 1985. c. 27 (1st Supp.), s.
186.
commission athl6tique ou d'un corps semblable
etabli par la legislature d'une province, au sous
son autorite, pour la regie du sport dans la pro~
vince.
L.R. (1985), ch. C-46. art. 83; L.R. (1985). ch. 27 (tc; suppl.), art. 186.
PART Il.l
PARTIE 11.1
TERRORISM
TERRORISME
INTERPRETATION
DEFINITIONS ET INTERPRETATION
Definitions
83.01 (I) The following definitions apply in
this Part.
83.01 (1) Les definitions qui suivent s'appliquent a la presente partie.
"Canadian"
'~Canadian': means a Canadian citizen, a pennanent resident within the meaning of subsection
2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act or a body corporate incorporated and conw
tinued under the laws'ofCanada or a province.
«activite terroriste»
«(
Canadien)
«('.mIiM»
"listed entity"
{( en/iii!
n
(i) les inti'actions visees au paragraphe
7(2) et mettant en ceuvre la Convention
pour la repreSSion de fa capture illicite
d'aerone/s, signee a La Haye Je 16 de·
"listed entity" means an entity on a list established by the Governor in Council under section 83.05.
cemb!'e 1970,
(ii) les inti'actions visees au paragraphe
7(2) et mettant ell O!uvre la Convention
"terrorist activity" means
"terrorist
activity"
({ucth'ile
tun·oris/I.!
action ou omission, commise au Canada au it l'etranger - qui, au
Canada, constitue une des infractions
suivantes:
"entity" means a person, group, trust, partnership or fund OI' an unincorporated association 01'
organization.
"entity"
ill.~t'I·II{!
a) Soit un acte -
or outside Canada and that, if committed in
Canada, is one of the following offences:
pour fa repression d'ac/es illicites diriges
contre la SeClirite de I'aviation civile~ signee Montreal Ie 23 septembre 1971,
(i) the offences referred to in subsection
7(2) that implement the Conventionfor the
(iii) les infractions visees au paragraphe
7(3) et mettant en reuvre la Convention sur
(a) an act or omission that is committed in
JI
a.
la prevention et la repression des infractions contre les personnes jouissartt d'une
protection internationale, y compris les
agents diplomatiques, adoptee par I' Assemblee generale des Nations Unies Ie 14
Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed at The Hague on December
16,1970,
(ii) the offences referred to in subsection
7(2) that implement the Conventionfor the
decembre 1973,
Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the
Sqfety of Civil Aviation, signe~ at Montreal on September 23, 1971,
(iv) les infractions visees au paragraphe
7(3.1) et mettant en ceuvre la Convention
(iii) the offences referred to in subsection
7(3) that implement the Convention on the
adoptee par I' Assemblee generale des Nations Unies Ie 17 decembre 1979,
Prevention and Punishment of Crimes
against Internationally Protected Persons,
including Diplo11ltIlic Agents, adopted by
(v) les infractions visees aux paragraphes
7(3.4) ou (3.6) et mettant en reuvre la
internationale contre la prise d'otages,
Convention sur fa protection physique des
malieres nucleaires, conclue aNew York
the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 14, 1973,
et Vienne Ie 3 mars 1980,
(iv) the offences referred to in subsection
7(3.1) that implement the International
(vi) les infractions visees au paragraphe
7(2) et mettant en reuvre Ie Pr%cole pour
Convention against the Taking of
Hostages, adopted by the General Assem~
la repression des actes Ulicites de violence
75
Definitions
{{ activitc
terroriste ))
"fen·oris/
aCfivity"
43
Criminal Code -August 24,2010
dans fes ael'oports sel11ant it I'aviation civile internationale, eomplementaire '10
Convention pOllr la repression d'aeles illicites diriges contre la seeurite de l'aviation Civile, signe it Montreal Ie 24 fevrier
1988,
bly of the United Nations on December
a
17.1979.
(v) the offences referred to in subsection
7(3.4) or (3.6) that implement the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear
Material, done at Vienna and New York
on March 3,1980,
(vii) les infractions visees au paragraphe
7(2.1) et mettant en ceuvre la Convention
pour la repression d'acles iIIicites contre
la securite de la navigation maritime,
conclue it Rome Ie 10 mars 1988,
(vi) the offences referred to in subsection
7(2) that implement tile Protocol for the
Suppression of UlflawJul Acts of Violence
at Airports Serving International Civil
Aviation, supplementary to the Convention
for (he Suppression of Unlawjitf Ac(s
against the Sqfety of Civil Aviation, signed
(viii) les infractions visees aux paragraphes 7(2.1) Oll (2.2) e! mettan! en
ceuvre Ie Pr%eale pour fa repression
d'aeles iIlicites contre fa securite des
plates-formes fIXes situees sur Ie plateau
continental, conclu a Rome Ie 10 mars
1988,
at Montreal on February 24, 1988,
(vii) the offences referred to in subsection
7(2.1) that implement the Convention for
the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at
Rome on March 10,1988,
(ix) les infractions visees au paragraphe
7(3.72) ct mettant en ceuvre la Convention
inlernationaie pour la repression des attentals terroristes a!'explosij; adoptee par
I' Assemblee generale des Nations Unies Ie
15 decembre 1997,
(viii) the offences refelTed to in subsection 7(2.1) or (2.2) that implement the
Protocol for the Suppression qf Unlawful
Acts against the SafelY oj Fixed Pla{fornls
Locafed on Ihe Continental Shelf, done at
Rome on Mat'eh
1O~
(x) les infractions visees au paragraphe
7(3.73) et mettant en a:uvre la Convention
internationale pour la repression dufinaneement du terrorisme, adoptee par l'Assemblee generale des Nations Unies Ie 9
ciecembre 1999;
1988,
(ix) the offences referred to in subsection
7(3.72) that implement the International
Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 15, 1997, and
b) soit un acte - action ou omission, commise au Canada au it j1 etranger:
(i) d'une part, commis a la fois:
(x) the offences referred to in subsection
7(3.73) that implement the international
Convention for the SuppreSSion of the FinanCing afTerrorism, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on
December 9, 1999, or
(A) au nom - exclusivement ou non
- d'un but, d'un objectif au d'une
cause de nature politique, religieuse au
ideologique,
(B) en vue - exclusivement ou non
- d'intimider tout ou partie de la population quant a sa securite. entre
autres sur Ie plan economique, ou de
contraindre une personne, un gouvernement au une organisation nationate
ou intemationale a accomplir un acte
ou s'en abstenir, que la personne, la
population, Ie gouvemement ou I'organisation soit ou non au Canada,
(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,
(i) that is committed
(A) in whole or in part for a political,
religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and
a
(B) in whole or in prot with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security,
or compelling a person, a government
(ii) d'autre part, qui intentionnellement, selon Ie cas:
76
44
Code cl'iminel- 24 aoiil 2010
(A) cause des blessures graves a une
personne ou la mort de celle-ci, par
l'usage de la violence,
or a domestic, or an international organi~
zatian to do or to refrain from doing any
act, whether the public or the person,
government or organization is inside or
outside Canada, and
(B) met en danger Ia vie d'une personne,
(ii) that intentionally
(C) cornprornet gravement la· sante
ou la seeurite de tout ou partie de la
population,
(A) causes death or serious bodily harm
to a person by the use ofviolence~
(B) endangers a pelSon's life,
(D) cause des dommages materiels
considerables, que les biens vises
soient publics ou prives, dans des circonstances telles qu'il est probable
que I 'une des situations mentionnees
aux divisions (A) it (C) en resultera,
(C) causes a seriollS risk to the health
or safety of the public or any segment
of the public,
(D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property. if causing such damage is likely to
result in the conduct. or halm referred to
in any of clauses (A) to (e), or
(E) perturbe gravement ou paralyse
des services, installations au sys~
temes essentiels, publics ou prives,
sauf dans Ie cadre de revendications,
de protestations ou de manifestations
d'un desaccord ou d'un arret de travail qui n'ont pas pour but de provoquer !'une des situations mentionnees
aux divisions (A) a(C).
(E) causes serious interference with or
serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public
or private, other than as a result of ad~
vacac)', protest, dissent or stoppage of
work that is not intended to result in the
conduct or harm referred to in any of
clauses (Al to (C),
Sont vises par la presente definition, relativement un tel aete, Ie complot, la
tentative, la menace, la complicite apn!s
Ie fait et I'encouragement it la perpetration; iI est entendu que sont exclus de la
presente detinition l'acte - action ou
omission commis au cours d'un
conflit anne et conforme. au moment et
au lieu de la perpetration. au droit international eoutumier ou au droit international conventionnel applicable au
conflit ainsi que les activites menees par
les forces arrm!es d'un Btat dans .l'exercice de leurs fonctions offieielles, dans
la mesure
ces activites sont regies
par d'autres regles de droit international.
a
and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to
commit any such act or omission, or being an
accessory after the fact or counselling in r'elation to any such act or omission, but, for greater
certainty, does not include an act or omission
that is committed during an armed conflict and
that, at the time and in the place of its commission. is in accordance with customary international law or conventional international law ap~
plicable to the conflict, or the activities
undertaken by military forces of a state in the
exercise of their official duties, to the extent
that those activitie's are governed by other rules
of international law.
"Ierrorist group"
llterrorist group'~ means
(groupe
terrorisfe »
(a) an entity that has as one of its purposes
or activities facilitating or canying out any
terrorist activity. or
(b) a listed entity,
and includes an association of such entities.
au
« Canadien}) Citoyen canadien, resident permanent au sens du paragraphe 2(1) ae la Loi sur
l'immigration et la protection des refugMs ou
personne morale constituee ou prorogee sous Ie
regime d'une loi federate ou provinciale.
«entite}} Personne, groupe, fiducie, societe de
personnes ou fonds, ou organisation ou association non dotee de la personnalite morale.
77
«Canadien })
"Canadian"
~~ entitc»
"emily""
45
C";minal Code -August 24,2010
({entite inscrite}) Entite il1scrite sur la liste etablie par Ie gouvemeur en conseil en vertu de
Particle 83.05.
«emile
« groupe tel1'oriste»
« groupe
terroriste»
inserit.: »
"/islr:d enlity"
a) Soit une entite dont l'un des objets ou
"Ien'orlsf
group"
l'une des activites est de se livrer it des activites terroristes ou de Ies faciliter;
b) soit une entite inserite.
Est assimile aun groupe ten'oriste un groupe ou
une association forme de groupes telToristes au
sens de la presente definition.
For greater
certainty
(1.1 ) For greater certainty, the expression of
a political, religious or ideological thought, belief or opinion does not come witbin paragraph
(b) of the definition "teITorist activity" in subsection (1) unless it constitutes an act or omission that satisfies the criteria of that paragraph.
(1.1) II est entendu que I'expression d'une
pensee, d'une croyance ou d'une opinion de nature politique, religieuse ou ideologique n'est
visee it l'alinea b) de la definition de « activite
terroriste)} au paragrapbe (1) que si elle constitue un acte - action 0l,1 omission - repondant
aux criteres de cet alinea.
Imerpretation
Facilitation
(2) For the purposes of this Patt, facilitation
shall be, construed in accordance with subsection 83.19(2).
(2) Pour I'application de la presente partie,
faciliter s'interprete en conformite avec Ie paragraphe 83.19(2).
F3cilita~ion
2001,c.41,ss.4,126,
2001. ch, 41. art. 4 et 126.
Providing or
collecting
property for
cermin activities
FINANCING OF TERRORISM
FINANCEMENT DU TERRORISME
83.02 Everyone who, directly or indirectly,
wilfully and without lawful justification or excuse, provides or collects property intending
that it be used or knowing that it will be used,
in whole or in part, in order to carry out
83.02 Est coupable d'un aete criminel passible d'un emprisonnement maximal de dix ans
quiconque, directement Oll non, fom'nit Oll
reunit, d6liberement et sans justification au excuse legitime, des biens dans I~intention de les
voir utiliser - ou en sachant qu'ils serollt utilises - en tout ou en partie, en vue:
(a) an act 01' omission that constitutes an offence referred to in subparagraphs (a)(i) to
(ix) of the definition of "'terrorist activity" in
subsection 83.01 (1), or
a) d'un· acte -
action au omission - qui
constitue Pune des inti'actions prevues aux
sous-alineas a)(i) it (ix) de la definition de
« activite terroriste» au paragraphe 83.01(1);
(b) any ather act ar omission intended ta
cause death or serious bodily harm to a civilian or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of
armed conflict, if the purpose of that act or
omission, by its nature or context, is to intimidate the public, or to compel a govern w
ment or an international organization to do or
refrain from doing any act,
b) de tout autre acte - action au omission
- destine a causer la mort au des dommages
corpol'els graves a une personne qui ne patti
cipe pas directement aux hostilites dans une
situation de conflit arme, notamment un ciw
viI, si, par sa nature au son contexte, cet acte
est destine it intimider Ia population ou a
contraindre un gouvernernent au une organisation intemationale a accomplir ou it s'abstenir d' accomplir un acte quelconque.
R
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to
imprisonment for a term of not more than 10,
years.
2001,c,41,s,4,
2001, ch, 41, art, 4.
78
FOllrnir ou
rcunir titS biens
ell vue de
certains 3Ctes
46
Code criminel--:- 24 aozi! 2010
Providing,
making
available, etc.,
properly or
services for
terrorist
purposes
83.03 Evel), one who, directly or indirectly,
collects property, provides or invites a person
to provide, or makes available property or financial or other related services·
(a) intending that they be used, or knowing
that they will be used, in whole or in part, for
the purpose offacilitating or carrying out any
ten'orist activity, or for the purpose of benefiting any person who is facilitating or carrying out such an activity, or
83.03 Est coupable d'un acte criminel passible d'un emprisonnement maximal de dix ans
quiconque) directement au non, reunit des biens
au fournit - aU invite une autre personne a Ie
faire - au rend disponibles des biens au des
services financiers au connexes:
Fonnlir, rendre
disponibles, etc.
des biens ou
services ades
fins terroristes
a) soit dans J'intention de Ies voir utiliserau en sachant qu'i1s seront utilises - , en
tout au en partie, pour une activite ten'oriste,
pour faciliter une telle activite au pour en
faire beneficiel' une personne qui se livre Ii
une telle activite au la facilite;
(b) knowing that, in whole or part, they will
be used by or will benefit a ten'orist group,
b) soit en sachant qu'ils seront utilises, en
tout ou en partie, par un groupe terroriste au
qu'ils beneficierol1t, en tout au en partie, a
celui-ci.
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to
imprisonment for a term of not more than 10
years,
2001,e.41,s.4.
2001, eh. 41, art. 4.
Using or
possessing
property for
terrorist
purposes
83.04 Every one who
(a) uses property, directly or indirectly, in
whole or in part, for the purpose of facilitating or carrying out a terrorist activity, or
83.04 Est coupable d'un acte criminel passible d'ul1' emprisonnement maximal de dix ans
quiconque, selon Ie cas:
a) utilise directement au non, en tout au en
partie, des biens pour une activite terroriste
au pOUI' la faciliter;
possesses properly intending that it be
used or knowing that it will be used, directly
or indirectly, in whole or in part, for the purpose of facilitating 01' carrying out a terrorist
activity,
(b)
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to
imprisonment for a term of not more than 10
years.
Utiliscr ou avoir
en sa possession
des biens a des
fins terroristes
b) a en sa possession des biens dans l'intention de les voil' utiliser - au en sachant
qu'ils seront utilises - directement au non,
en tout ou en partie, pour une activite terro,riste au pour la facilitel',
2001, eh. 41, art. 4.
2001, e. 41, s. 4.
Establishment or
list
LIST OF ENTITIES
INSCRIPTION DES EN1lTEs
83.05 (1) The Governor in Council may, by
regulation, establish a list on which the Governor in Council may place any entity if, on the
recommendation ofthe Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Governor
in Council is satisfied that there are reasonable
grounds to believe that
83.05 (1) Le gouverneur en conseil peut,
par reglement, etablir une liste sur laquelle il
inscrit toute entite dont il est convaincu~ sur la
recommandation du ministl'e de la Securite publique et de la Protection civile, qu'il existe des
motifs raisonnables de croire:
a) que, sciemment, eUe s'est livree ou a tente de se livrer a une activite terroriste, y a
participe au l'a facilitee;
(a) the entity has knowingly carried out, atN
tempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a ten'orist activity; 01'
b) que, sciemment, elle agit au nom d'une
entite visee al'alinea a), SallS sa direction au
en collaboration avec elle.
(b) the entity is knowingly acting on behalf
of, at the direction of or in association with
an entity referred to in paragraph (a).
Recommenda~
tion
(1.1) The Minister may make a recommendation referred to in subsection (1) only ifhe or
she has reasonable grounds to believe that the
EtabIissemem de
laliste
(1.1) Le ministre ne fait fa recommandation
visee au paragraphe (1) que s'it a des motifs
79
Rccommanda·
tion
41
Criminal Code - August 24,2010
Interim
preservation
rigllls
83.16 (I) Pending any appeal of an order
made under section 83.14, property restrained
under an order issued under section 83.13 shall
continue to be restrained, property seized under
a warrant issued under that section shall continue to be detained, and any person appointed to
manage, control or otherwise deal with that
property under that section shall continue in
that capacity.
83.16 (I) Le blocage ou la saisie de biens
sous Ie regime de Particle 83.13 restent tenants,
et la personne nommee pour la prise en charge
de ces biens en vertu du me:me article continue
d'agir a ce titre, jusqu'a ce qu'iI soit statue sur
Pappel forme contre une ordonnance rendue en
vertu de I'article 83.14.
Sauvcgarde des
droilS
Appeal of
refusal to grant
order
(2) Section 462.34 applies, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to an ap~
peal taken in respect of a refusal to grant an order under subsection 83.14(5).
(2) L'article 462.34 s'app1ique, avec les
adaptations necessaires, aux appels interjetes it
I'egard du refus d'accorder une ordonnance en
veltu du paragraphe 83.14(5).
Appel du refus
d'accordcr
I'ordonnance
200l,c.41,s.4.
2001, ch. 41, art. 4.
Other forfeiture
provisions
unaffected
83.17 (l) This Part does not affect the operation of any other provision oftbis or any other
Act of Parliament respecting the forfeiture of
property.
83.17 (1) La presente paltie ne porte pas atteinte aux autres dispositions de la presente loi
au de toute autre loi federale qui visent la
confiscation de biens.
Mninticnde
dispositions
specifiques
Priority for
restirution to
victims of crime
(2) Property is subject to forfeiture under
subsection 83.14(5) only to the extent that it is
not required to satisfY the operation of any other provision of this or any other Act of Parliament respecting restitution to, or compensation
of. persons affected by the commission of ot:'
fences.
(2) Un bien ne peut etre confisque en vertu
du paragraphe 83.14(5) que dans la mesure ou
iI n 'est pas requis pour I'application d'une autre
disposition de la pn~sente loi au d'une autre loi
federale en matiere de restitution au de dedommagemem en faveur des victimes d'infractiolls
criminclles.
Priorite aux
\'ietimes
200l.c.41,s.4.
2001, ch. 41, art. 4.
PARTICIPATING,
FAOLITATlNG,
INSTRUCTING AND
PARTICIPER, FACILITER, DONNER DES INSTRUCTIONS
ET HEBERGER
HARBOURING
Particip:1tion in
activity of
terroriSt group
83.18 (1) Every one who knowingly participates in or contributes to, directly or indirectly,
any activity of a telTorist group for the purpose
of enhancing the ability of any terrorist group
to facilitate or cany out a terrorist activity is
guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
83.18 (1) Est coupable d'un acte criminel
passible d'un empl'isonnement maximal de dix
ans quicanque, sciemment, participe it une activite d'un groupe terroriste~ ou y contribue, di~
rectement ou non, dans Ie but d'accroitre la capacite de tout groupe terroriste de se livrer a
une activite terroriste au de Ia [acHiter.
Participation a
une acrivit6 d'un
groupe terroriste
Prosecution
(2) An offence may be committed under
subsection (1) whether or not
(2) Pour que I'infraction visee au paragraphe
(I) soit commise, il n'est pas necessaire:
Poursuite
(a) a ten-orist group actually facilitates or
carries out a terrorist activity;
a) qu'une activite terroriste soit effectivement menee ou facilitee par un groupe terroriste;
(b) the participation or contribution of the
accused actually enhances the ability of a terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terror. ist activity; or
b) que la participation au la contribution de
l'accuse accroisse effectivement Ia capacite
d'un groupe terroriste de se livrer a. une activite teIToriste ou de la faciliter;
(c) the accused knows the specific nature of
any terrorist activity that may be facilitated
or carried out by a terrorist group.
c) que I'accuse connaisse la nature exacte de
toute activite teIToriste susceptible d'etre me- .
nee ou facilitee par un groupe ten·oriste.
90
,.
48
Code cl'iminel- 24 aozit 2010
?'I-leaning of
participating or
contJibllting
(3) Participating in or contributing to an ac-
tivity of a terrorist group includes
(a) providing, receiving or recruiting a per-
a
(3) La participation ou la contribution une
activite d'un groupe ten'oriste s!'entend
notamment:
son to receive training;
a) du fait de donner ou d'acquerir de la for-
mation ou de recruter une personne
telle fin;
(b) providing or offering to provide a skill or
an expertJse for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist
group;
a une
b) du fait de mettre des competences au une
expertise a la disposition d'un groupe terro~
riste, a son protit ou sous sa direction, au en
association avec lui, ou d'offrir de Ie faire;
(c) recruiting a person in order to facilitate
or commit
c) du fait de recruter une personne en vue de
(i) a terrorism offence, or
faciliter ou de commettl'e une inti'action de
terrorisme au un acte I'etranger qui, s'i1
etait commis au Canada, constituerait une
telle infi-action;
a
(ii) an act or omission outside Canada
that, if committed in Canada, would be a
ten"orism offence;
(d) entering or remaining in any country for
the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist group; and
d) du fait d'entrer au de demeurer dans un
(e) making oneself, in response to instructions from any of the persons who constitute
a tenurist group, available to facilitate or
commit
e) du fait d'etre disponible. sous les instructions de quiconque Hlit partie d'un groupe
terroriste, pour faciliter au commettre une infraction de terrorisme au un acte a l'etranger
qui, s'il elait commis au Canada, constitlle~
rait une telle infraction.
pays au profit au SOllS la direction d'un
groupe terroriste. au en association avec lui;
(i) a terrorism offence, or
(ii) an act or omission oLltside Canada
that, if committed in Canada, would be a
terrorism offence.
Factors
(4) In determining whether an accused participates in or contributes to any activity of a
terl'orist group, the court may consider. among
other factors, whether the accused
(4) Pour determiner si I'accuse participe ou
cantribue it une activite d'un groupe terroriste,
Ie tribunal peut notamment prendre en compte
les faits suivants:
(a) uses a name. word. symbol or other representation that identifies. or is associated
with, the terrorist group;
a) I'accuse utilise un nom. un mot, un sym~
(b) fi'equently associates with any ofthe persons who constitute the ten'orist group;
b) il th~quente quiconque fait partie du
groupe terroriste;
(c) receives any benefit from the ten'orist
c) il re~oit un avantage du groupe terroriste;
group; or
d) it se livre regulierement a des activites seIon les instructions d'une persanne faisant
partie du groupe te11"oriste.
Facteurs
bole ou un autre signe qui identifie Ie groupe
ou y est assode;
(d) repeatedly engages in activities at the in-
struction of any of the persons who constitute the telTorist group.
Participation ou
cOL\lributioll
2001, ch_ 41, art 4.
2001, c. 41, s. 4.
Facilitating
terrorist activity
83.19 (1) Every one who knowingly facilitates a terrorist activity is guilty of an indictable
offence and liable to imprisonment for a tenn
not exceeding fourteen years.
83.19 (I) Est coupable d'un acte crimine!
passible d'un emprisonnement maximal de qua~
torze ans quiconque sciemment facilite une aotivite terroriste.
91
Facilitation
d'uno nctivitc
terrorisle
49
Criminal Code -August 24,2010
Facilitation
(2) For the purposes of this Part, a terrorist
activity is facilitated whether 01' not
(a) the facilitator knows that a particular terrorist activity is facilitated;
(2) Pour I~application de la presente partie, il
n'est p'as necessaire pour faciliter une activite
terroriste:
a) que l'interesse sache qu'il se trouve it faciliter une activite telToriste en particulier;
(b) any particular terrorist activity was foreseen or planned at the time it was facilitated;
Commission of
offence for
terrorist group
Instructing to
carry out activity
tor terrorist
group
Prosecution
Facilitation
b) qu'une activite terroriste en particulier ait
au eUe est facilitee;
01'
ete envisagee au moment
(c) any terrorist activity was actually carried
out.
c) qU'llne activite terroriste soit effective-
ment mise it execution.
2001, c. 41, s. 4.
20ot, ch. 41, art. 4.
83.2 Everyone who commits an indictable
offence under this or any other Act of Parliament for the benefit of, at the direction of or in
association with a telTorist group is guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprispnment
for life.
83.2 Est coupable d'un acte criminel pas~
sible d'un emprisonnement it perpetuite qui~
conque commet un acte criminel prevu par la
presente loi au par une autre loi federale au
profit au sous 1a direction d'un groupe terroriste, all en association avec lui.
2001,c.41,s.4.
2001, ell. 41, arlo 4.
83,21 (I) Every person who knowingly instructs, directly or indirectly, any person to carry out any activity for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist
group, foJ' the purpose of enhancing the ability
of any terrorist group to facililale or carry oUl a
terrorist activity, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment tor lite.
83.21 (1) Est coupable d'un acte criminel
passible d'un emprisonnement it perpetuite quiconque, sciemment, Charge directement ou indirectement une personne de se livrer a une activite au protit au sous la direction d'un groupe
terroriste, au en association avec lui, dans Ie
but d'accroitre In capacite de tout groupe terroriste de se Bvrer une activite terroriste au de
la faciliter.
(2) An offence may be committed under
subsection (1) whether or 110t
Infraction au
profild'Oll
groupe terroriste
ChaTserunc
pcrsonne de 5C
Jivrerilune
activit': pour un
Sfoupe tcrroriste
a
(2) Pour que I'infraction visee au paragraphe
(1) soit commise, iI n'est pas necessaire:
a
a) que l'activite
laquelle I'accuse charge
quiconque de se livrer soit effectivement
mise it execution;
(a) the activity that the accused instructs to
be carried out is actually carried out;
(b) the accused instructs a particular person
to earlY out the activity referred to in paragraph (a);
b) que I' accuse charge une personne en par-
ticulier de se livrer a I'activite;
c) que Paccuse connaisse l'identite de Ia
personne qu'it charge de se livrer a l'activite;
(c) the accused knows the identity of the
person whom the accused instructs to carry
out the activity referred to in paragraph (a);
d) que ia personne chargee par I' accuse de
l'activite sache que celle-ci est
se Iivrer
censee etre menee au profit ou sous la direc~
tion d'un groupe terroriste, ou en association
avec lui;
a
(d) the person whom the accused instructs to
carry out the activity referred to in paragraph
(a) knows that it is to be carried out for the
benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist group;
e) qu'une activite terroriste soit effective
ment menee au facilitee par un groupe terroriste;
M
(e) a ten'orist group actually facilitates or
carries out a terrorist activity;
que l'activite visee a l'alinea a) accroisse
effectivement la capacite d'un groupe terroriste de se livrer it une activite terroriste au
de la faciliter;
fJ
(j) the activity referred to in paragraph (a)
actually enhances the ability of a terrorist
group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity; or
92
Poursuitc
50
Code criminel- 24 aout 2010
g) que I'accuse connaisse la nature exacte de
toute activite terroriste susceptible d'etre menee au facilitee par un groupe terl'oriste.
(g) the accused knows the specific nature of
any telTorist activity that may be facilitated
or carried out by a terrorist group.
2001,c.4J,s.4.
Instructing to
carry out
terrorist activity
Prosecution
2001, eh. 41, art. 4.
Chargerune
personne de se
Iivrcra Ulle
activit.! terroriste
life.
83.22 (I) Est coupahle d'un acte criminel
passible d'un emprisonnement a perpetuite quiconque, sciemment, charge, directement au
non, une personne de se Iivrer a une activite
terroriste.
(2) An offence may be committed under
subsection (1) whether or not
(2) Pour que I'infraction visee au paragraphe
(1) soit commise, it n'est pas necessaire:
Poursuile
(a) the terrorist activity is actually carried
out;
a) que j'activite. terroriste soit effectivement
(b) the accused instructs a particular person
to carry out the terrorist activity;
b) que l'accuse charge une personne en
ticulier de se livrer I'activite tenoriste;
(c) the accused knows the identity of the
c) que I'accuse connaisse I'identite de la
personne qu'iI charge de se livrer l'activite
83.22 (I) Evel), person who knowingly instructs, directly or indirectly, any person to car~
ry out a terrorist activity is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for
mise a execution;
a
person whom the accused instructs to carry
out the terrol'ist activity; or
terrorist~;
(d) the person whom the accused instructs to
carry out the terrorist activity knows that it is
a terrorist activity.
H:lrbouring 01'
conceuling
par~
a
d) que la personne chargee par I'accuse de
se livrer it I'activite terroriste sache qu'il
s'agit d'une activite terroriste.
2001,c.41,s.4.
2001, eh. 41. arl. 4.
83.23 Everyone who kno'wingly harbours or
conceals any person whom he oj' she knm.vs to
be a person who has calTied out or is likely to
cany out a terrorist activity, for the purpose of
enabling the person to facilitate or carlY out
any terrorist activity, is guilty of an indictable
offence and liable to imprisonment for a term
not exceeding ten years.
83.23 Est coupable d'un acte criminel passible ct"un emprisonnement maximal de dix ans
quiconque h6berge au cache sciemment une
personne dont it sait qU'elie s:est livree it une
activite terroriste au est su~ceptible de Ie faire,
atin de lui pel'mettre de se Iivrer it une activite
terroriste ou de la faciliter.
Hebel'~cr Oll
clleller
2001. ch. 41, art. 4.
2001,e.41,5.4.
HOAX REGARDING TERROR1ST ACT1VITY
Hoax-lcrroriSt
activity
83.231 (1) Every one commits an offence
who, without lawful excuse and with intent to
cause any person to fear death, bodily harm,
substantial damage to property or serious interference with the lawful use or operation of
property,
(a) conveys or causes or procures to be con~
veyed infonnation that, in all the circumstances, is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension that terrorist activity is OCCUlTing or
will occur, without believing the information
to be true; or
INCITATION
A CRAINDRE DES ACTIVITIs TERRORlSTES
83.231 (I) Commet une infraction qui-
Incitation a
conque, sans excuse legitime et avec I'intention
de faire craindre it quelqu 'un soit la mort OU des
blessures corporelles, soit des dommages materiels considerables des biens au une entrave
serieuse a I'emploi ou l'exploitation legitime de
cIaindre des
a
ceux~ci:
a) transmet ou fait en sorte que soient trans·
mis des renseignements qui, compte tenu du
contexte, sont susceptibles de faire raisonna~
blement eraindre que des activites terroristes
sont au seront menees, sans etre convaincu
de leur veracite;
(b) commits an act that, in all the circumstances, is likely to cause a reasonable appre~
hension that terrorist activity is occUlTing or
b) cammet un aete qui, compte tenu du
contexte, est.susceptible de faire raisonnable~
93
ac.tivilCs
lerroristes
51
CANADA
.
I
I
CONSOLIDATION
CODIFICATION
Director of Public
Prosecutions Act
Loi sur Ie directeur des
poursuites penales
S.c. 2006, c. 9, s. 121
1.c. 2006, ch. 9, art. 121
NOTE
[Enacted by section 121 of chapter 9 of, the Statutes of
Canada, 2006, in force on assent December 12,2006.]
I
!
NOTE
[Edictee par I'article 121 du chapitre 9 des Lois du Canada
(2006), en vigueur ala sanction Ie 12 decembl'e 2006.]
Cun'ent to Febl1lary 7, 2012
Ajour au 7 fevrier 2012
Published by the Minister of Justice at the following address:
http://Iaws-lois.justice.gc.ca
Public par Ie min"istre de 1a Justice a I'adresse suivante :
http://lois-Iaws.justi ce.gc.ca
52
OFFICIAL STATUS
OF CONSOLIDATIONS
CARACTERE OFFICIEL
DES CODIFICATIONS
Subsections 31(1) and (2) of the Legislation
Revision and Consolidation Act, in force on
June 1,2009, provide as follows:
Les paragraphes 31(1) et (2) de la Loi sur fa
revision et fa codification des textes !egis/atifs,
en vigueur Ie 1er juin 2009, prevoient ce qui
suit:
Published
cOLlsolidation is
evidence
il1consislcncie:;
in Acts
31. (I) Every copy of a consolidated statute or
consolidated regulation published by the Minister
under this Act in either print or electronic form is evidence of that statute or regulation aQd of its contents
and every copy purpOlting to be published by the'
Minister is deemed to be so published, unless the
31~ (I) Tout exemplaire d'une 10i codifiee ou d'un
reglement coditie, publie par Ie ministre en veltu de
la presente 10i sur support papier au sur support electronique, fait foi de cette 10i ou de ce reglement et de
son contenu. Tout exemplaire donne comme public
cOlHrary is 5ho\\·11.
preuve contraire.
(2) In tht!" event of an inconsistency between a
consolidated statllte published by the Minister under
(2) Les dispositions de la loi d'origine avec ses
modifications subsequentes par Ie greffier des Parlements en vertu de la Loi Sll1' fa publication des lois
l'emportent sur les dispOSitions incompatibles de la
loi codifiee publiee pm'le ministre en vertu de la presente loi.
this Act and the original statute or a subsequent
amendment as certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments under the Publication ajStatutes Act. the original statute or amendment prevails to the extent of
the inconsistency.
i
I
I
"I
I
I
I
)
par
Ie ministre est repute avail' ete ainsi
Codifications
comme element
de preuve
publh!, sauf
NOTE
NOTE
This consolidation is current to Febl11ary 7, 2012.
Any amendments that were not in force as ofFebruary 7, 2012 are set out at the end of this document
under the heading "Amendments Not in Force".
Cette codification est a jour au 7 fevrier 2012.
Toutes modifications qui n'etaient pas en vigueur
au 7 [evrier 2012 sont enoncees a la fin de ce document sous Ie titre (( Modifications non en vigueur ».
IncomplItibilit':
-lois
TABLE ANAL YTIQUE
TABLE OF PROVISIONS
Section
Page
Article
Page
Loi concernant la charge de directeur des
poursuites penales
An Act respecting the office of the
Director of Public Prosecutions
SHORT TITLE
TITRE ABREGE
·Titre abrege
Short title
INTERPRETATION
2
DEFINITIONS
Definitions
Definitions
2
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTIONS
3
4
5
Appointment
Selection committee
Tenure and term
DEPUTY DIRECTORS,
PROSECUTORS AND OTHER STAFF
6
7
8
9
Deputy Director
Employed federal prosecutors
Other staff
6
11
12
ISSUES OF GENERAL OR PUBLIC
INTEREST
Duty to inform
Intervention
ASSUMING CONDUCT OF
PROSECUTION
Taking conduct of prosecution
ANNUAL REPORT
16
6
7
8
Annual report
RELATED PROVISIONS
Adjoints
Procureurs de l'Etat: employes
Autres personnels
DELEGATION
5
Directive from Attorney General-
Nomination
Camite de selection
Mandat
ADJOINTS, PROCUREURS ET
AUTRESPERSONNELS
4
5
5
DIRECTIVES
Delegation
3
4
5
4
5
specific prosecution
Delay in publication - directive
Directives not statutOlY instruments
15
1
3
4
DELEGATION
10
13
14
DIRECTEUR DES POURSUITES
PENALES
9
Pouvoir de delegation
DfRECTIVES
10
6
6
6
II
12
Directives du proem"eur general:
poursuite detelminee
RepOit de 1a publication
Non-application de Ia Loi sur les textes
reglementaires
QUESTIONS D'INTERET GENERAL
OU PUBLIC
6
6
6
13
14
Communication au procureur general
Intervention du procureur general
PRISE EN CHARGE
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
15
7
Prise en charge
RAPPORT ANNUEL
7
7
16
Rapport annuel
DISPOSITIONS CONNEXES
8
3
7
7
7
8
I
I
54
Shortlitle
S.C. 2006, c. 9, s. 121
L.C. 2006, ch. 9, art. 121
An Act respecting the office of the Director of
Public Prosecutions
Loi concernant fa charge de directeur des
poursuites penales
[Assented to 12th December 2006]
[Sanctiontuie Ie 12 decembre 2006]
SHORT TITLE
TITRE ABREGE
1. This Act may be cited as the Director of
Public Prosecutions Act.
1. Lol sur Ie directeur des poursuUes penales.
INTERPRETATJON
DEFINITIONS
Ddinilions
2. The following definitions apply in this
Act.
2. Les definitions qui suivent s'appliquent
la presente loi.
"Attorney
Generar'
"Attorney GeneraP' means the Attorney General of Canada.
«poursuite)} Sauf en ce qui COllcerne les affaires visees au paragraphe 3(8), toute poursuite
penale qui rei eve de la competence du procu~
reur general. Y sont assimiles les procedures
liees it toute infraction dont la poursuile, meme
eventuelle, rei eve de la competence de ce dernier, ainsi que les recours connexes.
<lPI"(lt'lI/'t;lIr
~Jm}ral »
"prosecotion"
<(
P(}lII;~IIi1I!)J
"prosecution", except in relation to matters refelTed to in subsection 3(8). means a pl'osecution under the jurisdiction of the Attorney Gen~
eral, a proceeding respecting any offence, the
prosecution - or prospective prosecution - of
\:vhich is under the jurisdiction of the Attorney
General, and any appeal related to such a prosecution or proceeding.
a
«procureur general» Le procureur general du
Canada.
Definitions
I( poursuitc I)
"pnm:clllion"
( prOctlrcur
general»
"Attorney
General"
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
DIRECTEUR DES POURSUITES PEN ALES
Appointment
3. (1) The Governor in Council shall, on the
recommendation of the Attorney General, appoint a Director of Public Prosecutions (in this
Act refem~d to as the "Director") in accordance
v'lith section 4.
3. (1) Le gouverneur en conseil nomme, sur
recommandation du procureu!' general, Ie direc~
teur des poursuites penales (ci~apres appete Ie
«directeun» suivant Ia procedure etablie al'ar~
ticIe 4.
RlIIlk and status
(2) The Director has the rank and status of a
deputy head of a department.
(2) Le directeUl' a rang et statut
trateur general de ministere.
Duties Bnd
functions
(3) The Director, under and on behalf of the
Attorney General,
(3) II exercc, sous I'autorite et pour Ie
compte du procureur general, les attributions
suivantes:
(a) initiates and conducts prosecutions on
behalf of the Crown, except where the Attor-
Tilreabrigc
d'adminis~
Nomination
Rang ct statut
R6lec[
atlributions
55
Director of Public Prosqclltions - Febl'UGlY 7. 2012
ney General has assumed conduct of a prosecmion under section 15;
a) engage!" et mener les pOUl"suites pour Ie
compte de I'Etat, sauf celles qui sont prises
en charge par Ie proem'eur general en vertu
de l'article 15;
(b) intervenes in any matter that raises a
question of public interest that may affect the
conduct of prosecutions or related investigations, except in proceedings in which the Attorney General has decided to intervene under section 14;
b) intervenir relativement a toute affaire
dans laquelle des questions d'interet public
sont soulevees qui pourraient avoir une incidence sur la conduite des poursuites ou des
enquetes connexes, sauf les affaires a I'egard
desquelles Ie procureur general a decide d'intervenir en veltu de Particle 14;
(e) issues guidelines to persons acting as
federal prosecutors respecting the conduct of
prosecutions generally;
c) donner des lignes directrices aux personnes agissant it. titre de procureurs de PEtat
relativement a la conduite des poursuites en
general;
(d) advises "law enforcement agencies or in-
vestigative bodies in respect of prosecutions
generally or in respect ofa particular investigation that may 1ead to a prosecution;
d) conseiller les organismes charges de I'application de la 101 ou les organismes d'enquete a I'egard des pOUl"Suites, de fayon generale ou
i'egard d'une enquete pouvant
mener a des poursuites;
communicates with the media and the
public on all matters respecting the initiation
and conduct of prosecutions;
(e)
a
(j) exercises the authority of the Attorney
General respecting private prosecutions, including to intervene and assume the conduct
of - or direct the stay of - such prosecutions;and
e) communiquer avec les medias et Ie public
relativement a tOllte question liee it "introduction Oll it la condui.te des poursuites;
f) exercer les pouvoirs du procurelll' general
relatifs aux pOUl'suites privees, notamment
celui d'intervenir et d~assumer leur conduite
ou d' en ordonner la suspension;
exercises any other power or carries out
any other duty or function assigned to the
Director by the Attorney General that is
compatible with the office of Director.
(g)
g) exercer toutes autres attributions que lui
assigne Ie procureur general et qui ne sont
pas incompatibles avec sa charge.
Deputy Attorney
General
(4) For the purpose of exercising the powers
and performing the duties and functions referred to in subsection (3), the Director is the
Deputy Attorney General of Canada.
(4) Dans Ie cadre de I'exercice des attribu~
tions visees au paragraphe (3), il est sous-procmeur general du Canada.
Guidelines not
statutoI)'
instruments
(5) For greater certainty, guidelines referred
to in paragraph (3)(c) are not statutory instruments within the meaning ()f the Statutory Instruments Act.
(5) II est entendu que les Iignes directrices
visees it l'alint~a (3)c) ne sont pas des textes reglementaires au sens de la Loi sur les textes reglementaires.
Publication
(6) Any assignment under paragraph (3)(g)
must be in writing and be published by the Attorney General in the Canada Gazelle.
(6) Le procureur general fait publier dans la
Gazette du Canada Ies attributions qu'iI assigne au directeur aux termes de l'alinea (3)g).
Agreements and
am'mgemcnts
(7) The Director may, fbr the purposes of
exercising the powers and performing the duties and functions referred to in subsection (3).
enter into an agreement or arrangement on behalf of the Attomey General with the government of a province.
(7) Dans Ie cadre de I'exercice des attributions visees au paragraphe (3), Ie direeteur peut
conclure. pour Ie compte du procureur general,
des ententes ou accords avec Ie gouvernement
d'une province.
I
I
I
2
Sous.procureur
gCllcrni
Non-application
de la 1.oi sur 1M
Il!xfl!S
reglclncluai/"e.!
Publication
Ententes et
accords
56
Directeul" des p021rsliites pinales - 7jevl'iel' 2012
Dlllieseleetion-rel:ued
matters
(8) The Director initiates and conducts prosecutions on behalf of the Crown with respect to
any offences under the Canada Elections Act,
as well as any appeal or other proceeding related to such a prosecution.
(8) Le directeur engage et mene, pour Ie
compte de PEtat, les poul'suites relatives it toute
inti"action it la Loi electorale du Canada ainsi
que les recours et procedures connexes.
Other powers,
(9) The Director may, under and on behalf
of the Attorney General, exercise any powers
or perform any duties or functions of the Attorney General under the Extradition Act or the
Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal At/atters
(9) II peut, sous i'autmite et pour Ie compte
du procureur general, exercer les attributions
confen!es it ce dernier par la Loi SUI' I'extradi!ion et la Loi SUI' I'entraide juridique en maliere criminelle.
duties and
functions
Lo; eJl!c/Qro'~ (hI
Canada;
attribulions
AUlIes
attriblltions
Act.
4. (1) The Attorney General shall establish
a selection committee consisting of the following members:
4. (1) 11 incombe au procureur general de
constituer un comite de selection forme des
membres suivants:
(a) a person named by the Federation of
Law Societies of Canada;
a) un representant de la Federation des
ordres professionnels de juristes du Canada;
(b) a
p~rson named by each recognized political party in the House of Commons;
b) un representant de chacun des partis reconnus it la Chambre des communes;
·1
(c) the Deputy Minister of Justice;
c) Ie sous-ministre de la justice;
II
(d) the Deputy Minister of the Department
of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness; and
d) Ie sous-ministre de la Securite publique et
I
(e) a person selected by the Attorney GeneraL
Selection
committee
Comitede
selection
de la Protection civile;
e) une personne de son choix.
(2) The Attorney General shall submit to the
selection committee a list of not more than 10
candidates whom he or she considers suitable
to be appointed as Director, each of whom must
be a member of at least 10 years standing at the
bar of any province. The committee shall assess
the candidates and recommend three of them to
the Attorney General.
(2) Le procureur general sou met au comite
de selection une liste d'au plus dix candidats
qui sont membres du barreau d'une province
depuis au moins dix ails et qu'il considere aptes
a exercer la charge de directeur. Le comite evalue les calldidats et lui en recommallde trois.
Liste de
candidalS
Selection
(3) The Attorney General shall, from among
those three candidates, select the one whom he
or she considers most suitable fot' the office of
Director.
(3) II choisit parmi ·Ies trois candidats recommalldes celui qu'il considere Ie plus apte it
exercer la charge de directeur.
Candidat choisi
Referral to
comminee
(4) The question of the appointment of the
selected candidate shall be referred for ap-proval to a committee designated or established
by Parliament for that purpose.
.
(4) Le choix du candidat est soumis it rapprobation d'un comite pariementaire designe Oll
etabli pour la circonstance.
Renvoi nun
(5) The Attorney General shall, if the parliamentary committee gives its approval, recommend to the Governor in Council that the selected candidate be appointed as Director or, if
the parliamentary committee does not give its
approval, refer to the committee the appointment of another candidate recommended under
subsection (2).
(5) Le procureul' general, ayant rec;u l'approbation du comite parlementaire, recommande
au gouverneur .en conseil de nommer Ie candidat choisi; defaut de cette approbation, il sou~
met ace comiti une autre des candidatures recommandees aux termes du paragraphe (2).
Recamrnandation au
List of
calldidates
Recommendation 10 Govemor
in Council
a
3
comite
parlemcntairc
gouverneur en
conseil
I
57
"
Director oj Public Prosecutions - Febl11al'Y 7, 20 J2
I
a
Tenure and term
5. (1) The Director holds office, during
good behaviour, for a term of seven years, but
may be removed by the Governor in Council at
any time for cause with the support of a resolution of the House of Commons to that effect.
The Director is not eligible to be reappointed
for a further term of office.
5. (1) Le directeu\, est nomme titre inamovible pour un mandat de sept ans, SOllS reserve
de revocation motivee par Ie gouverneur en
conseil appuyee par une resolution de la
Chambre des communes it cet effet. Son mandat ne pent etre renouveie.
End oflenn
(2) At the end of the Director's term, the Director shall continue in office until his or her
successor is appointed.
(2) A I'expiration de son mandat, iI demeure
en fonction jusqu'a ce qu'iI soit rem place.
Full-rime
(3) The Director shall engage exclusively in
the duties and functions of his or her office under this Act or any other Act of Parliament and
shall not hold any other office or engage in any
other employment for reward.
(3) II se consacre exclusivement it la charge
que lui confere la presente lei ou toute autre loi
federaie, a I'exclusion de tout autre empioi ou
charge retribue.
Temps plein
Incapacity or
vac:llIcy
(4) In the event of the incapacity of the Director or a vacancy in that office. the Governor
in Council may authorize a Deputy Director of
Public Prosecutions to act as Director, but no
person may act as Director for a period exceeding 12 months without the approval of the Governor in Council.
(4) En cas d'empechement ou de vacance de
son paste, Ie gouverneur en conseil peut autorisel' un des adjoints du directeur assurer !'interim, qui ne peut cependant depasser douze mois
sans son approbation.
Interim
(5) The Director shall be paid the remuneration and expenses that are tixed by the Governor in Council. Once fixed, the remuneralion
may not be reduced.
(5) Le directeur re90it la remuneration et les
indemnites tixees par Ie gouverneur en conseil.
Une lois tixee~ sa remuneration IlC peut etre reduite.
DEPUTY DIRECTORS, PROSECUTORS
AND OTHER STAFF
ADJOINTS, PROCUREURS ET AUTRES
PERSONNELS
Deputy Director
6. (1) The Governor in Cound I shall, on the
recommendation of the Attorney General. appoint one or more members of at least 10 years'
standing at the bar of any province to be
Deputy Directors of Public Prosecutions.
6. (1) Le gouverneur en conseil nomme, sur
l'ecommalldation du pl'ocureur general, un ou
plusieurs adjoints au directeur parmi les
membres du barreau d'une province depuis au
moins dix ans.
Adjoints
Selection
conmlittce
(2) The Attorney General may only make
the recommendation after consultation with a
selection committee consisting of the Director,
a person representing the Federation of Law
Societies of Canada and the Deputy Minister of
Justice.
(2) La recommandation du procureur general ne peut eU'e faite qu'apres consultation d'un
comite de selection forme du directeuf, d'un repn!sentant de la Federation des ordres professionnels de juristes du Canada et du sous-ministre de la Justice.
Comitcde
sclection
Powers, duties
and functionslawful deputy
(3) Under the supervision of the DIrector, a
Deputy Director may exercise any of the powers and perform any of the duties or functions
referred to in subsection 3(3) and, for that purpose, is a lawful deput;y of the Attorney General.
(3) Les adjoints peuvent exercer, sous la supervision du directeul', les attributions visees au
pal'agl'aphe 3(3} dans l'exercice desqueUes ils
sont des substituts legitimes du procul'eur general.
AUribulions:
subslituts
ICgilimcs
Other powers,
duties and
fnnctions
(4) Under the supervision of the Director, a
Deputy Director may also act for or on behalf
of the Director in the exercise of any of the oth-
(4) lIs peuvent aussi exercer, au nom et pour
Ie compte du directeul' et SOllS sa supervision,
toute autre attribution que celui-ci est autorise a
Autres
attributions
·1
Remuneration
lind expenses
Mandat
Fin.du mandaI
a
I
4
. RCllluncration el
indemnj,,:,s
Direcleur des po1tl'suites penales - 7 jevriel' 2012
er powers or the performance of any of the other duties or functions that the Director is authorized to exercise or perform under this or any
other Act of Parliament.
exercer en vertu de la presente loi ou toute
autre loi federale.
Employed
federal
prosecutors
7. (1) The federal prosecutors that are necessary to enable the Director to perfonn any of
the duties or functions of his or her office shall
be appointed in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act.
7. (I) Les procureurs de PEtat dont Ie directeur a besoin pour I'exercice de sa charge sont
nommes en confonnite avec la Lai sur ['emplo;
dans lajonctian publique.
ProeureuT3 de
[,Elal: employes
Non-employcd
federal
prosecutors
. (2) The Director may also for that purpose
retain, on behalfofHer Majesty, the services of
barristers and, in the Province of Quebec, advocates to act as federal prosecutors and, with the
approval 'of the Treasury Board, may fix and
pay their fees, expenses and other remuneration.
(2) Aux memes fins, Ie directeur peut aussi
retenir, pour Ie compte de PEtat, les services
d'avocats pour agir comme procureur.s de l'Etat
et, avec I'approbation du Conseil du Tresor,
fixer leur remuneration et leurs indemnites.
Proeurcurs de
I'Etat : autrcs
Qualification
(3) A person appointed under subsection (I)
or whose services are retained under subsection
(2) must be a member of the bar of a province.
(3) Les personnes nommees en vertu du paragraphe (1) ou dont les services soot retenus
au titre du paragraphe (2) doivent etre membres
du ban'eau d'une province.
Conditions
requiscs
8. (1) Any otller ofticers and employees
that are necessary to enable the Director to perform any of the dlities and functions of his or
her office shall be appointed in accordance with
the Public Serl';ce Employment Act.
S. (1) Les autres personnels dont Ie directeur a besoin pour l'exercice de sa charge sont
la Loi sur temploi
nommes confoi·mement
dans la/anclian publique.
Autres
personnels
(2) The Directm may engage the services of
persons having technical or specialized knowl
edge of any matter relating to the Director's
work to advise and assist the Director in performing any of the duties and functions of his
or her office and, with the approval of the Treasury Board, may fix and pay the remuneration
and expenses of those persons ..
(2) Le directeur peut aussi retenir les services d'experts ou de specialistes dont la competence lui est utile dans ['exercice de sa
charge; iI peut fixer, avec Papprobation du
Conseil du Tresor, leur remuneration et leurs
indemnites.
Assistance
technique
DELEGATION
DELEGATION
9. (1) The Director may, subject to any restrictions or limitations that the Director specifies, authorize a federal prosecutor, a person
acting as a federal prosecutor under subsection
7(2) or any person referred to in subsection
8(1) to act for or on behalf of the Director ill
the exercise of any of the powers or the performance of any of th~ duties or functions that the
Director is authorized to exercise or perform
under this or any other Act of Parliament, except the power to delegate under this subsection.
9. (1) Le directeur peut, dans les limites
qu'il fixe, autoriser les procureurs de I'Etat~ les
personnes agissaot a ce titre en vertu du paragraphe 7(2) ou toute autre personne visee au
paragraphe 8(1) a exercer, pour lui ou en son
nom, les attributions qu'il est autorise aexercer
en vertu de 1a preseote loi ou toute autre loi federate, sauf Ie pouvoir de delegation lui meme.
Pouvoirde
delegation
(2) Every person who is authorized under
subsection (1) acts as an agent of the Director
and is not required to prove such authorization.
(2) Toute personne agissant en vertu de Ia
delegation visee au paragraphe (I) est manda-
MandaI
. Other staff
I
Technical
assistance
I
Delegation
Agency
M
a
M
5
59
Director o/Public ProseclItions- Febl'uClIY 7,2012
I
taire du directeur et n'a pas
cette delegation.
Designation
I
Safety and Emergency Preparedness under
tion 185 of the Criminal Code.
1
Directive from
Attorney
General-
I
sec~
10. (1) Any directive that the Attorney General issues to the Director with respect to the
10. (1) Toute directive donnee par Ie procureur general au directeur relativemcnt a I'introduction au ala conduite d'une poursuite en parw
ticuliel' ['est par ecrit et est publiee dans la
initiation
must be in writing and be published in the
Canada Gazelle.
Directivc-
J
Designation
DIRECTIVES
specific
generally
applicable
(3) Le directeul', ses adjoints ainsi que toute
personne visee au paragraphe 7(3) peuvent etre
des mandataires designes du ministre de Ia Securite publique et de la Protection civile aux
termes de l'article 185 du Code cl'iminel.
DIRECTIVES
prosecution
I
II
(3) The Director, a Deputy Director and any
person referred to in subsection 7(3) may be
designated as an agent of the Minister of Public
a faire la preuve de
01'
conduct of any specific prosecution
(2) The Attorney General may, after consulting the Director, issue directives respecting
the initiation or conduct of prosecutions generally. Any such directives must be in writing and
be published in the Canada Ga=ette.
Directives du
proeureur
general:
poursuite
delerrninee
Gazette du Canada.
(2) Le procureur general peut, apres consultation du directeur~ lui donner des directives relativement a I'introduction ou a la conduite des
poursuites en general. Ces directives sont donnees par ecrit et publiees dans Ia Ga:::elte du
Directives
generales
rcilltives aux
poursuiles
Canada.
DeJayin
publication directive
11. (I) The Attomey General or the Director may, ifhe or she considers it to be in the interests of the administration of justice, direct
that the publication in the Canada Ga=ette of a
directive referred to in subsection I O{ 1) be delayed.
11. (l) Le proeureur general ou Ie directeur
peut, s'il juge que Padministration de la justice
I'exige, ardonner que la publication des directives dans la Ga=ette du Canada eonfonnement
au paragl'aphe 1O( I) SOil reportee.
Repon de la
Limit on delay
(2) The publication ofa directive may not be
delayed beyond the completion of the prosecution or any related prosecution.
(2) Toutefois, elle ne peut etre repartee audelci du terme de la poul'suite ou de celui de
taute poursuite cannexe.
Limite
Direclivtsl101
statutory
instruments
12. For greater certainty, directives issued
under section 10 are not statutory instruments
within the meaning of the Statutory Instruments
Act.
12. 11 est entendu que les directives visees a
I'article lOne sont pas des textes reglemen
taires au sens de 1a Loi sur les textes reglemenw
publication
Non.applieation
dclal.f1i.mrles
Ic.yles
riglelllen/aires
taires.
ISSUES OF GENERAL OR PUBLIC
INTEREST
QUESTIONS D'INTERET GENERAL OU
PUBLIC
Duty to infonn
13. The Director must inform the Attorney
General in a timely manner of any prosecution,
or intervention that the Director intends to
make, that raises important questions of general
interest.
13. Le directcur infarme Ie procureur genew
ral en temps utile de toute poursuite ou de toute
intervention qu'il se propose de faire soul evant
d'importantes questions d'interet general.
Intervention
14. When, in the opinion of the Attorney
General, proceedings raise questions of public
interest, the Attorney General may, after notifying the Director, intervene in first instance or
on appeal.
14. Lorsqu'une poursuite souleve, a son
avis, des questions d'interet public, Ie procurem general peut intervenir, apres en avair avise Ie directeur, en premiere instance ou en appel.
6
Communication
au procureur
general
intervention du
proeureur
general
60
Directeul' des pOllJ"suiles penales - 7jevriel' 2012
Takingcomluct
of prose en lion
Transfer of file
ASSUMING CONDUCT OF PROSECUTION
PRISE EN CHARGE
]5. (1) The Attorney General may only assume conduct of a prosecution after first consulting the Director. The Attorney General
must then give to the Director a notice of intent
to assume conduct of the prosecution and publish it in the Canada Gazette without delay.
IS. (1) Le procureur general peut prendre
en charge une poursuite s'it a, au prealable,
(2) The Director is required to
turn
the pros-
ecution tile over to the Attorney General and to
provide any information that the Attorney General requires within the time specified.
,Dclayin
publication
(3) However, publication may be delayed if
the Attorney General or the Director considers
it to be in the interests of the administration of
justice.
Prise en chargt:
consulte Ie directeur ace sujet; Ie cas echeant,
il l'avise de son intention et publie sans tarder
I'avis dans la Gazette du Canada.
(2) Le directeur remer alars Ie dossier au
procUJ:eur general et lui tOUl'nit, dans Ie delai
que ce demier indique, tout renseignement exige par lui.
Remise du
dossier
(3) La publication peut cependant etre reportee si Ie directeul' ou Ie procureur general estime que I'administration de lajustice Pexige,
Report de la
publication
ANNUAL REPORT
RAPPORT ANNUEL
Annual report
16. (I) The Director shall, not later than
June 30 of each year, report to the Attorney
General in respect of the activities of the office
of the Director - except in relation to matters
referred to in subsection 3(8) - in the immedi-.
atel)' preceding fiscal year.
16. (1) Au plus tard Ie 30 juin de chague annee, Ie directeur presente au procureur general
un rappOlt des'activites de son bureau - sauf
en ce qui concerne taute affaire visee au paragraphe 3(8) - pour }'exercice pn~cedent.
Rapport annuel
Tilblh12 in
Parliament
(2) The Attorney General shall cause a copy
of the Director's report to be laid before each
House ofPal'liament on any of tile first 15 days
on which that House is sitting after he or she
receives the report.
(2) Le procureur general fait deposer Ie rapport devant chacune des chambres du Parlement dans les quinze premiers jours de seance
de celle-ci suivant sa reception.
Depot
7
61
Director of Public Prosecutions - Febl'uGlY 7, 2012
RELATED PROVISIONS
Definition of
"other Act"
-2006, C. 9,5. 122
- 2006, ell. 9, art. 122
122. In sections 123 to 127 of this Act, "other
Act" means the D;rector o/Public Prosecutions Act,
as enacted by section 121 of this Act.
122. Aux ruticles 123 a 127 de [a presente loi,
«autre loi» s'entend de la Loi silr Ie directeur des
pow'suites penates, edictee par l'article 121 de la
presente loi.
-2006, c. 9,5.123
- 2006, ch. 9, art. 123
Defillition de
(( autre loi»)
Direclel1f
under the other Act until the appointment of the Director of Public Prosecutions under subsection 3(1)
ofthe other Act.
123. (1) La personne qui occupe Ie paste de sousprocureur general adjoint (droit criminel) au ministere de la Justice a la date d'entree en vigueur du
present article est autorisee ii agir comme directeur
des poursuites penales au titre de I'autre loi jusqu'it
ce qu'ait ete nomme Ie directeur des poursuites pe~
nales confOlmement au paragraphe 3(1) de l'autre
loi.
Acting Deputy
Director
(2) That person may authorize two members of at
least 10 years' standing at the bar of any province to
act as Deputy Directors of Public Prosecutions under
the· other Act until the appointment of a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions under subsection 6(1)
of the other Act.
(2) Celle-ci peut autoriser deux personnes.
membres du barreau d'une province depuis au moins
dix ans, aagir comme adjoints au titre de J'amre loi,
jusqu'a ce qu'ait ete nomme un adjoint au directeur
des poursuites penales conformement au paragraphe
6(1) de I'autre loi.
Adjoints
interimaires
lncnpllcity or
dea.th
(3) In the event of the incapacity 01' death of the
person authorized to act as the Director of Public
Prosecutions under subsection (I). the Attorney General of Canada shall designate one of the persons authorized to act as Depllty Director orpublic Prosecutions under subsection (2) [0 act as Director of
Public Prosecutions in the interim.
(3) En cas d'empechement ou de deces de la personne autOlisee a agir eomme directeur des pour
suites pen ales en vertu du paragraphe (1), Ie procu~
reur general du Canada designe une des personnes
alltorisees ell agir comme adjoinls en vcrtu du paragraphe (2) pour assurer I'interilll.
Interim
-2006,
-2006. ch. 9, art 124
Acting Director
123. (I) The person who holds the position of
Assistant Deputy Attorney General (Criminal Law)
in the Department of Justice immediately before the
day on which this section comes into force is authorized to act as the Director of Public Prosecutions
.
DISPOSITIONS CONNEXES
I
C.
9,5.124
interimaire
w
Transfcr of
cmployecs
124. (I) The coming into force of the other Act
shall not be construed as affecting the status of an
employee who occupied, immediately before the day
on which the other Act comes into force, a position
in the Deprutment of Justice in the administrative
unit known as the Federal Prosecution Service, except that the employee fi·om that day occupies that
position in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
124. (I) L'entree en vigueur de I'autre loi est
sans effet sur la situation des fOllctionnaires qui, it la
date de cette entree en vigueur, occupaient un poste
au ministf:re de la Justice dans I'unite administrative
connue SOliS Ie nom de Service federal des poursuites, ell Ia difference que, a compter de cette date,
ils I'occupent all sein du Bureau du directeur des
poursuites penales.
Trll.lISfclT des
fonctionnaires
Transferofot11er
staff
(2) The Governor in Council may, by order made
on the recommendation of the Treasury Board, if the
Govemor in Council is of the opinion that an em~
ployee or class of employees in the Department of
Justice is carrying out powers. duties or functions
that are in whole or in prot in support of or related to
the powers, duties and functions of employees reR
ferred to in subsection (1) and that it is in the best inR
terests of the core public administration to do so, dew
clare that the employee or class of employees shall,
on the day all which the order comes into force, oc~
cupy their positions in the Office of the Director of
Public Prosecutions.
(2) Le gouverneur en conseil, s'il estime que la
mesllre sert les interets de I'administration publique
centrale, peut" par decret pris sur recommandation du
Conseil du Tresor, prevoir que des fonctionnaires ou
categories de fonctionnaires du ministr!re de la Justice qui, a son avis, exercent, en tout ou en partie,
des atttibutions Iiees a celles des fonctionnaires vises
au paragraphe (1) ou des attributions conn exes, occuperont, acompter de la date d'entrce en vigueur du
decret, leur poste au sein du Bureau du directeur des
poursuites penaies.
Transfert par
decret
Definition of
"employee"
(3) In this section, "employee" has the same
meaning as in subsection 2(1) of the Public Service
(3) Au present article, «fonctionnaire» s'entend
au sens du paragraphe 2(1) de la Loi sur !'emp!oi
Definitioll de
«fonctionnaire )}
Employment Act.
dans lajonctionpublique.
8
62
Directelll' des poursui!es penales - 7jevrier 2012
Non-ernployed
fed~ral
prosecutors
-2006, e. 9, s. 125
- 2006, eh. 9, art. 125
125. Any ban"ister or, in the Province of Quebec,
any advocate whose services were retained, immedi-
a I'avocat dont les services ant ete retenus avant la
ately before the day on which the other Act comes
into force. to act as a prosecutor for the Crown in
connection with any matter is deemed, on that day,
to have had his or her services retained under subsection 7(2) of the other Act to act in connection
125. Le paragraphe 7(2) de Pautre loi s'appJique
date d'entree en vigueur de I'autre loi pour agir
comme procureur pour I'Etat relativement it toute affaire comme si ces services avaient ete retenus sous
Ie regime de ce paragraphe.
ProC\lrellrs de
l'Etat: aUircs
que des
fonetionnaires
with that matter.
Transfer of
appropriations
- 2006, e. 9, s. 126
- 2006, ch. 9, alt. 126
126. Any amount that is appropriated, for the fiscal year in which the other Act comes into force, by
126. Les SOimnes affectees - mais non engagees
- pour I'exercice en cours it la date d'entree en vigueur de I'autre loi, par toute loi de credits consecutive aux previsions budgetaires de cet exercice, aux
frais et depenses du ministere de la Justice relative·
ment aux attributions de I'unite administrative
connue sous Ie nom de Service federal des poursuites
sont l1!putees etre afTectees, it cette date, aux frais et
depenses dl1 Bureau du directel1r des poursuites penales,
an appropriation Act based on the Estimates for that
year for defi-aying the charges and expenses of the
Department of Justice in relation to duties and functions carried out by the administrative unit .IOlown as
the Federal Prosecution Service and that, on the day
on which the other Act comes into force, is unexpended: is deemed to be an amount appropriated for
defraying the charges and expenses of the Office of
the Director of Pub He Prosecutions.
I
-2006, e. 9, s. 127
Continuation of
prosecutions
i
Dl;!iinitiOIl of
"pros~cution"
I
I
Election-related
prosecutions
- 2006, ch. 9, art. 127
General of Canada is a party and that is ongoing on
the day on which the other Act comes into force is
conlinued by the Director of Public Prosecutions
without further fOlmality.
127. (l) Les poursuites auxquelles Ie procureur
general du Canada est partie et qui sont en cours a Ia
date d'entree en vigueur de l'al1tre loi sont conti~
nuces sans autres fonnalites par Ie directeur des
poufsuitcs pcnalcs.
(2) In subsection (I), "prosecution" has the same
meaning as in section 2 of the other Act.
(2) Pour I'application du paragraphe (I), f( poursuite» s'entend all sens de I'article 2 de J'autre loi.
-2006, e. 9,s.128
-2006, eh. 9, alt. 128
127. (1) Any prosecution to which the Attorney
128, Any prosecution for an offence under the
Canada Elections Act that is pending immediately
before the day on which sections 121 and 130 to 136
of this Act come into force may continue to be conducted by the Commissioner of Canada ElectiOlls, as
well as any appeal or other proceeding related to
such a prosecution as if those sections had not come
into force.
T ransfert de
credits
128. Les poUt'Suites pour infraction it la Loi elecCOlli'S
la date d'entree en vigueur des articles 121 ct 130 it 136 de la presente loi
continuent a etre menees par Ie commissaire aux
elections federales, ainsi que les recours et autres
procedures connexes, comme si ces articles n'etaient
pas entres en vigueur.
torale du Canada en
",
9
a
Poursuites en
cours
Delinition de
({ poursuite n
Poursuites
relatives it la L()/
electoral!! du
Canada
CANADA
I
CONSOLIDATION
CODIFICATION
Extradition Act
Loi sur l' extradition
S.C. 1999, c. 18
L.c. 1999, ch.
18
Current to February 7, 2012
Ajour au 7 f6vrier 2012
Last amended on July 19,2005
Demitre modification Ie 19 juillet 2005
Published by the Minister of Justice at the following address:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca .
Publi6 par Ie ministre de la Justice it l'adresse suivante :
http://iois-Iaws.justice.gc.ca
64
Extradition - FebnlalJ} 7, 20J 2
SUBMISSIONS
Submissions
43. (1) The person may~ at any time before
the expiry of 30 days after the date of the committal, make submissions to the Minister in respect of any ground that would be relevant to
the Minister in making a decision in respect of
the sUlTender ofthe person.
OBSERVATIONS DE L'lNTERESSE
43. (1) L'intel'esse peut, au plus tard trente
apres la delivrance d'une ordonnance
d'incarceration, presenter ses observations au
minisU'e sur toute question touchant son extradition eventuelle vel'S Ie paltenaire.
ObselVations
JOUi'S
(2) The Minister may accept submissions
even after the expiry of those 30 days in circumstances that the Minister considers appropriate.
(2) Le ministre peut toutefois, si a son avis
les circonstances Ie justitient, accepter les ob·
servations apres l'expiration du delai de trente
jours.
REASONS FOR REFUSAL
MOTIFS DE REFUS
44. (1) The Minister shall refuse to make a
surrender order if the Minister is satisfied that
44. (1) Le ministre refuse I'extradition s'il
est convaincu que:
(a) the surrender would be unjust or oppressive having regard to all the relevant circumstances; or
a) soit Pextradition serait injuste au tyran-
(b) the request for extradition is made for
the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the
person by reason of their race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, language, colour, political opinion, sex, sexual orientation, age,
mental or physical disability or status 01' that
the person's position may be prejudiced tbr
any of those reasons.
b) soit la demande d'extradition est pn!sentee dans Ie but de poursuivl'e ou de punir
"interesse pour des motifs fondes sur la race,
la nationalite, I'origine ethnique, la langue, la
couteur, la religion, les cOllvictions politiques, Ie sexe, I'orientation sexuelle, I'age,
Ie handicap physique ou mental ou Ie statut
de I'interesse, ou il pOUiTait etre porte atteinte it sa situation pour I'un de ces motifs.
(2) The Minister may refuse to make a sur~
render order if the Minister is satisfied that the
conduct in respect of which the request for extradition is made is punishable by death under
the laws that apply to the extradition partner.
(2) II peut refuser d'extrader s'i1 est
convaincu que les actes a I'ol"igine de 1a demande d'extradition sont sanctionnes par la
peine capitale en vertu du droit applicable par
Ie partenaire.
Refusal in
extradition
1117ccmcnt
45. (I) The reasons for the refusal of surrender contained in a relevant extradition
agreement, other than a multilateral extradition
agreement, or the absence of reasons for refusal
in such an agreement, prevail over sections 46
and 47.
45. (1) Les motifs de refus prevus a l'ac
cord applicable - sauf a un accord multilateral
- I'emportent sur ceux pl'evus aux articles 46
et 47 et I'absence de tels motifs egalement.
Exccplion-
(2) The reasons for the refusal of surrender
contained in a relevant multilateral extradition
agreement prevail over sections 46 and 47 only
to the extent of any inconsistency between ei~
ther of those sections and those provisions.
(2) Ceux prevus dans un accord multilateral
l'empOitent sur les dispositions incompatibles
des articles 46 et47.
Accord
multilateral
46. (1) The Minister shall refuse to make a
suttender order if the Minister is satisfied that
46. (1) Le ministre refuse I'extradition s'il
est convaincu que:
Refus
obligatoire dans
Late acceptance
of submissions
When order not
to be made
When Minister
may rcfuse 10
make order
multilateral
extrndition
agreement
When order Dot
to be made
Deilli
supplcmcntaire
Motifs de refus
nique compte tenu de toutes les circonstances;
R
a) toute poursuite
a l'endroit
de I'interesse
est prescrite en vertu du droit du partenaire;
(a) the prosecution of a person is baiTed by
prescription or limitation under the law that
applies to the extradition partner;
18
POllvoir de
.refi.1ser
Primaute des
accords
certains cas
Extradition-7 jevrier 2012
(2) The Supreme Court may also, if an application for judicial review is made under section 57 01' otherwise, defer the hearing until the
court of appeal makes its determination on the
application.
(2) Dans Ie cas dlune demande de revision
judiciaire presentee en vertu de Particle 57 au
autrement~ eJle peut reporter Paudition jusqu'a
ce que la cour d'appel rende sa decision.
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF MINISTER'S ORDER
REvISION JUDICIAIRE DE LA DECISION DU MINISTRE
57. (1) Despite the Federal Courts Act, the
court of appeal of the province in which the
committal of the person was OI"dered has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine
applications for judicial review under this Act,
made in respect of the decision of the Minister
under section 40.
57. (1) Malgre la Loi sur les Cow's jederales, la cour d'appel de la province ou I'incarceration a ete ordonnee a competence exclusive
pour connaltre, confonnement au present article, de Ia demande de revision judiciaire de
l'arrete d'extl'adition pris au titre de l'al'ticle 40.
Application
(2) An application for jUdicial. review may
be made by the person.
(2) La demande peut etl·c presentee par Pinteresse.
Time limitation
(3) An application for judicial review shall
be made, in accordance with the rules of court
of the court of appeal, within 30 days after the
time the decision refen'ed to in subsection (1)
was first communicated by the Minister to the
person, OJ' within any finther time that the court
of appeal, either before or after the expiry of
those 30 days, may fix or allow.
(3) La demande est faite, en conformite avec
les l'egles de pratique et de procedure de la COUI'
d'appel, dans les tl'ente jours suivant la premiere communication de Parrete a l'interesse
par Ie ministre, ou dans Ie delai superieur que la
cour d'appel peut, avant ou apres I'expiration
de ces trente jours. fixer.
SeeliOil 679 of
the Crimillal
Code
(4) Section 679 of the Criminal Code applies, with any modifications tbat the circum
stances require, to an application for judicia! review.
(4) L'mticle 679 du Code crim;nel s'applique, avec Ics adaptations necessaires, aux
demandes presentees en application du present
article.
Hearing of
application
(5) An application for judicial review shall
be scheduled for hearing by the court of appeal
at an early date whether that date is in or out of
the prescribed sessions of that court.
(5) La demande est inscrite pour audition
dans les meilJeurs delais que la cour soit au non
en session.
(6) On an application for judicial review, the
court of appeal may
(6) Saisie de la demande, la cour d'appel
peut:
(a) order the Minister to do any act or thing
that the Minister has unlawfully failed or re~
fused to do or has unreasonably delayed in
doing; or
a) ordonner au ministre d'accomplir tout
acte qu'il a illegalement omis ou refuse d'accomplir au dont il a retarde I'execution de
mani(:re deraisonnable;
(b) declare invalid or unlawful, quash, set
aside, set aside and refer back for detennina
tion in accordance with any directions that it
considers appropriate, prohibit or restrain the
decision of the Minister referred to in subsection (1).
b) declarer nul Oll illegal, annuler, infirmer,
ou infirmer et renvoyer pour decision suivant
ses instlUctions, l'arrete d'extradition, en restl'eindre Ia portee au en intel'dil'e Ia prise.
(7) The COUIt of appeal may grant relief under this section on any ofthe grounds on which
the Federal Court may grant relief under subsection 18.1(4) oftheFederal Courts Act.
(7) Elle peut prendre les mesures prevues au
present article pour les memes motifs que la
CaUl' federale peut Ie faire en application du paragraphe 18.1(4) de la Loi stir Ies Catlrs jederales.
Deferral of
Supreme Court
appeal
Rcviewoforder
PowerS of court
ofappeai
w
w
Grounds of
review
23
Report de
I'audition:
revision
Revision
judiciaire
Demande
. Delai de
presentation
Article 679 du
Code crimille!
Audition dans
Ics meilleurs
delais
Pouvoirs de la
cour d'appe[
Motifs
66
Extradition-FebruClIJ,7,20l2
Defect in fOITI1
or technical
irregularity
(8) If the sole ground for relief established
in an application for judicial review is a defect
in form or a technical irregularity, the court of
appeal may
(8) Elle peut rejeter toute demande fondee
uniquement sur un vice de forme si elle estime
qn'en 1'0ccur1'ence Ie vice n'ent1'aine aueun tort
grave ni deni de justice et, Ie cas echeant, valider la decision entachee de vice et lui donner
effet selon les modalites qu'elle estime indiquees.
Vice de rOmle
(9) If an appeal under section 49 or any other appeal in respect of a matter arising under
this Act is pending, the court of appeal may
join the hea1'ing of that appeal with the hearing
of an application for judicial review.
(9) En cas d'appel en instance interjete dans
Ie cadre de l'article 49 ou fonde sur la presente
loi, elle pent joindl'e I'audition de I'appet a
celie d'nne demande de revision judiciaire.
Jonction
d'inSlallces
(10) Unless inconsistent with the p1'ovisions
of this Act, all laws, including rules, respecting
judicial review in force in the province of the
court of appeal apply, with any moditications
that the circumstances require, to applications
under this section.
(10) Sauf incompatibilite avec Ia presente
loi, les lois ou regles relatives a la revision judiciaire en vigueur dans la province s'appliquent,
avec les adaptations necessaires, aux demandes
presentees au titre du present article.
Regles
(a) refuse the relief if it finds that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has
occurred; or
(b) in the case of a defect in form or a technical hTegularity in the decision~ make an order validating the order, to have effect from
the time and on the terms that it considers
appropriate.
One hearing by
court of appeal
Provincial rules
ofjudicial
review apply
applicables
1999, eh. 18, art. 57; 2002, eh. 8, art 141.
1999,c. 18,s.57;2002,c.8,s. 141.
ARRETE D'E:h'TRADITfON
ORDER OF SURRENDER
Contents of the
surrender order
58. An order of sUiTender must
(a) contain the name of the person who is to
58. L'arrete d'extradition enonce les points
suivants:
be surrendered;
a) Ie nom de I'cxtrade;
(b) describe the offence in respect of which
b) soit Ia designation de I'infraction a I'originc de la demande d'extradition ou figurant
a I'ordonnance d'incarceration, soit les actes
ayant donne lieu a I'extradition;
the extradition is requested, the offence for
which the committal was ordered or the conduct for which the person is to be surrendered;
c) Ie nom du pattenaire auquel l'extrade est
remis;
(c) state the extradition partn~r to which the
person is to be conveyed;
d) l'ordre aU responsable de sa garde de Ie
placer sous la garde des personnes visees a
l'alinea e);
(d) direct the person who has custody of the
person to be surrendered to deliver them ip.to
the custody of the person or a member ofthe
class of persons refen'ed to in paragraph (e);
e) Ia designation de Ia personne ou de la categorie de personnes autorisees a remplir les
fonctions visees aI'article 60;
(e) designate the person or class of persons
authorized for the purposes of section 60;
1) les assurances et les conditions y aff6rentes;
(j) set out any assurances or conditions to
which the surrender is subject;
g) en cas de report au titre de Particle ·64, Ie
delai a I'expiration duquel la remise doit
avoir lieu;
(g) fix, in the case of postponement of surrender under section 64, the period of time at
or before the expiry of which the person is to
be surrendered; and
24
Tencut de
I'arrete
67
CANADA
CONSOLIDATION
CODIFICATION
International Transfer of
Offenders Act
Loi sur Ie transferement
international des
delinquants
S.C. 2004, c. 21
L.C. 2004, ch. 21
Current to February 7, 2012
Ajour au 7 f6vrier 2012
I
I
I
I
I
Last amended on December 2~ 2011
Dernh~re
modification le 2 decembre 2011
,
,i
"
Published by the Minister of Justice at the following address:
http://laws~lois.justice.gc.ca
Publi6 par Ie ministre de la Justice it. I'adresse suivante :
http://iois-Iaws.justice.gc.ca
68
Transftrement international des delinquanfs - 7 jevrier 2012
(3) A transfer is available to a Canadhl.l1 offender who, at the time the offence was committed, was a child within the meaning of the
Youth Criminal Justice Act even if their conduct would not have constituted a criminal offence if it had occurred in Canada at that time.
That offender may not be detained in Canada.
(3) Le dcmnquant 'canadien qui, a la date de
la commission de I'infraction, etait un enfant au
sens de la Loi sur Ie systeme de justice penale
pour les adolescents peut etre transfere meme
si J'acte reproche n'aurait pas co~stitue une inM
fraction criminelle s'it avait etc commis au
Canada cette date. Ce delinquant ne peut etre
detenu au Canada.
5. (1) A transfer may not have the effect of
increasing a sentence imposed by a foreign entity or of invalidating a guilty verdict rendered,
or a sentence imposed, by a foreign entity. The
verdict and the sentence, if any, are not subject
to any appeal or other form of review in
Canada.
5. (1) Le transferement ne peut avail' pour
cffet de porter atteinte a la validite de la decla
ration de cui pabilite ou de Ia peine prononcees
par l'entite etrangere. d'aggraver la peine ou de
permettre que celle-ci ou Ia declaration de
culpabilite fassent I'objet d'un appel au de toute
autre fonne de revision au Canada.
Maintien en etat
dc In situation
juridique
(2) A document supplied by a foreign entity
that sets out a finding of guilt and a sentence. if
any~ and purpOits to be signed by ajudicial official or a director of a place of confinement in
the foreign entity is proof of the facts alleged,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary and
without proof of the signature oj' offi~ial character of the person appearing to have signed it.
(2) Les documents tournis par I'entite etran
gere qui enoncent la declaration de culpabilite
et, Ie cas echeant, la peine et qui sont apparemment signes par un fonctionnaire judiciaire ou
Ie directeur dlun etablissement de detention de
l'entite etrangere font preuve, en I'absence de
preuve contraire) des faits qui y sont enonces,
sans qu'il soit necessaire de faire la preuve de Ia
signature ni de la qualite officielle de la personne qui les a apparemment signcs.
Preuve
MINISTER
MINISTRE
Administration
of Act
6. (1) The Minister is responsible for the
administration of this Act.
6. (1) Le ministre est charge de I'application
de la presente 10i.
Designation by
r.,·linister
(2) The Minister may, in writing) designate,
by name. or position, a staff member within the
meaning of subsection 2( I) of the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act to act on the Minister's behalf under section 8,12,15,24,30 or
37.
(2) Le ministre peut designer par ecrit nommement ou par designation de poste tout agent au sens du pal'agraphe 2( 1) de la Loi
sur Ie systeme correctionnel et la mise en liberIe sous condition pour I'exercice des attribuM.
tions que lui conrerent les articles 8, 12, 15, 24,
30 et 37.
Request for
transfcr
7. A person may not be transferred under a
treaty, or an administrative arrangement entered into under section 31 or 32, unless a reM
quest is made, in writing, to the Minister.
7. Le transterement d'une personne en vertu
d'un traite au d'une entente administrative
conclue en vertu des articles 31 ou 32 est SUM
bordonne
la presentation d'une demaride
ecrite au ministre.
Exccptionchildrcn
Effect of transfer
Evidence
Exception:
cnf-ants
a
M
M
Application
DcJ.~gation
exprcssc
Demandede
ITlInsiCremcnt
a
CONSENT
CONSENTEMENT
Consent oflhrec
parties
8. (I) The consent of the three parties to a
transfer - the offender, the foreign entity and
Canada - is required.
8. (1) Le transferement necessite Ie consentement des trois parties en cause, soit Ie de1in~
Quant, Pentite etrangere et Ie Canada.
Consentement
des trois parties
Withdrawal of
consent
(2) A foreign offender - and, subject to the
laws of the foreign entity, a Can&dian offender
- may withdraw their consent at any time be-fore the transfer takes place.
(2) Le delinquant eO'anger et, sous reserve
du droit de I'entite etrangere, Ie delinquant canadien peuvent retirer leur consentement tant
que Ie transferement n'a pas eu lieu.
Retraitdu
3
consentement
69
International Transfer a/Offenders - Febl1f([/JI 7, 2012
Information
.. bont treaties
!nfonnation
about sentence
and other
obligations
(3) The Minister or the relevant provincial
authority, as the case may be, shall inform a
foreign offender~ and the Minister shall take all
reasonable steps to inform a Canadian offender,
of the substance of any treaty - or administrative arrangement entered into under section 31
or 32 - that applies to them.
(3) Le ministre ou I'autorite provinciale
competente, selon Ie cas, informe Ie delinquant
etranger de la teneuJ' de tout traite applicable ou
de toute entente administrative applicable
conclue en vertu des articles 31 ou 32; Ie ministre prend les mesures voulues pour en informer Ie delinquant canadien.
(4) The Minister
(4) Le ministre:
(a) shall inform a Canadian offender, in
a) s'agissant du delinquant canadien:
writing, as to how their foreign sentence is to
be served in Canada and, in the case of an offender who is required to comply with the
Sex Offender In/ormation Registration Act.
(ii) Ie cas echeant, Pinforme par ecrit de
son obligation de se conformer it la Loi sur
I 'enregistrement de rense;gnements sur les
delinquants sexuels et de Ia teneur des ar~
tides 4 it 7.1 de ceUe loi et des alticies
490.031 et 490.0311 du Code criminel, et
transmet une copie de Ia formule 1 figu~
rant a l'annexe aux personnes ci~apres, au
plus tot a Ia date du transferement:
(ii) on the day of the transfer at the earliest, deliver a copy of Form 1 of the schedule to
(Al the offender,
(A) I'interesse,
(8) the Attorney General of the
province, or the minister or justice of
the territory, in \yhich the person is to
be detained in custody, and
(B) Ie procureur general de la province
ou Ie ministre de la Justice du territoire
Oll I' interesse sera detenu,
(e) Ie responsable du lieu ou I'interesse
sera detenu;
(e) the person in charge of the place in
which the person is to be detained in
custody; anp
b) s'agissant du deJinquant etranger, lui
transmet les renseignements que lui a remis
I'entite etrangere sur les conditions d'execution de sa peine.
(b) shall deliver to a foreign offender the in-
formation with which the Minister was PI'Ovided by the foreign entity as to how their
Canadian sentence is t.o be served.
PerSOll
Conditions
d'exccution et
nutres
obligations
(i) l'infonne par ecrit des conditions
d'execution de sa peine au Canada,
(i) inform them, in writing, of that obligation and of sections 4 to 7.1 of that Act
and sections 490.031 and 490.0311 of the
Criminal Code~ and
authorized to
consent
Obligation
d'infonnation
(5) In respect of the following persons, consent is given by whoever is authorized to consent in accordance with the laws of the
province where the person is detained, is released on conditions or is to be transferred:
(5) A I'egard de telle des personnes ci-apres,
Ie consentement est donne par quiconque y est
autorise en vertu du droit de 1a province ou la
personne est detenue, est liberee sous condition
ou doit etre transferee:
(a) a child or young person within the meaning of the Youth Criminal Justice Act;
a) I'enfant ou I'adolescent au sens de la Loi
sur Ie sysleme de justice pinale pour les adolescents;
(b) a person who is not able to consent and
in respect of whom a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder
or of unfit to stand trial has been rendered;
and
b) la personne d6c1aree non responsable cri~
minellement pour cause de troubles mentaux
au inapte subir son proces, qui est incapable de donner son consentement;
a
(e) an offender who is not able to consent.
c) Ie delinquant incapable de donner son
consentement.
2004, c. 21, s. 8; 2010, c. 17, s. 61.
2004, ch. 21, art. 8; 2010, ch. 17, art. 61.
4
Tutellrs ct
eurateurs
I
70
Canado~amedcan
[Page 2]
Treaty between Canada and the United States of America on
the execution of penal sentences
The Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America,
Desiring to enable offenders, with their consent, to serve sentences of imprisonment or
parole or supervision in the country of which they are citizens, thereby facilitating their
successful reintegration into society;
Have agreed as follows:
Article I
For the purposes of this Treaty:
(a) "Sending State" means the Party from which the Offender is to be transferred;
(b) "Receiving State" means the Party to which the Offender is to be transferred;
(c) "Offender" means a person who, in the territory of either Party, has been convicted of
a crime and sentenced either to imprisonment or to a term of probation, parole,
conditional release or other form of supervision without confinement. The term shall
include persons subject to confinement, custody or supervision under the laws of the
Sending State respecting juvenile offenders; and
(d) "Citizen" includes an Offender who may be a dual national of the Parties and in the
case of the United States also includes nationals.
Article II
The application of this Treaty shall be subject to the following conditions:
I
(a) That the offence for which the Offender was convicted and sentenced is one which
would also be punishable as a crime in the Receiving State. This condition shall not be
interpreted so as to require that the crimes described in the laws of the two Parties be
identical in such matters not affecting the character of the crimes as the quantity of
property or money taken or possessed or the presence of interstate commerce.
71
(b) That the Offender is a citizen ofthe Receiving State.
(c) That the offence is not an offence under the immigration laws or solely against the
military laws of a Party.
(d) That there is at least six months of the Offender's sentence remaining to be served at
the time of his application.
[Page 4]
i
II
I
I
(e) That no proceeding by way of appeal or of collateral attack upon the Offender's
conviction or sentence be pending In the Sending State and that the prescribed time for
appeal of the Offender's conviction or sentence has expired.
Article III
1. Each Party shall designate an authority to perform the functions provided in this
Treaty.
2. Each Party shall inform an Offender, who is within the scope of the present Treaty, of
the substance ofthe Treaty.
3. Every transfer under this Treaty shall be commenced by a written application
submitted by the Offender to the authority of the Sending State. If the authority of the
Sending State approves, it will transmit the application, together with its approval,
through diplomatic chaunels to the authority of the Receiving State.
4. If the authority of the Receiving State concurs, it will so inform the Sending State and
initiate procedures to effectuate the trailsfer of the Offender at its own expense. If it does
not concur, it will promply [sic] advise the authority of the Sending State.
5. If the Offender was sentenced by the courts pursuant to the laws of a state or province
of one of the Parties, the approval of the authorities of that state or province, as well as
that of the federal authority, shall be required. The federal authority ofthe Receiving
State shall be responsible for the custody of the transferred Offender.
6. In deciding upon the transfer of an Offender, the authority of each Party shall bear in
mind all factors bearing upon the prpbability that transfer will be in the best interests of
the Offender.
7. No Offender shall be transferred unless:
(a) he is under a sentence of imprisonment for life; or
(b) the sentence which he is serving states a definite telmination date, or the authorities
authorized to fix such a date have so acted; or
72
(c) he is subject to confinement, custody or supervision under the laws of the Sending
State respecting juvenile offenders, or
(d) he is subject to indefinite confinement as a dangerous or habitual offender.
8. The Sending State shall furnish to the Receiving State a statement showing the offence
of which the Offender was convicted, the termination date of the sentence, the length of
time already served by the prisoner and any credits to which the Offender is entitled on
account of work done, good behaviour or pretrial confmement. Where requested by the
Receiving State a translation shall be provided.
[Page 6]
9. Each Party shall establish by legislation or regulation the procedures necessary and
appropriate to give legal effect within its territory to sentences pronounced by courts of
the other Party and each Party agrees to cooperate in the procedures established by the
other Party.
10. Delivery of the Offender by the authorities of the Sending State to those of the
Receiving State shall occur at a place agreed upon by both Parties. The Sending State
shall afford an opportunity to the Receiving State, if it so desires, to verify, prior to the
transfer, that the Offender's consent to the transfer is given voluntarily and with full
knowledge of the consequences thereof, through the officer designated by the laws of the
Receiving State.
Article IV
1. Except as otherwise provided in this Treaty, the completion of a transfened Offender's
sentence shall be can-ied out according to the laws and procedures of the Receiving
State, including the application of any provisions for reduction of the term of
confinement by parole, conditional release or otherwise. The Sending State shall, in
addition, retain a power to pardon the Offender and the Receiving State shall, upon being
advised of such pardon, release the Offender.
2. The Receiving State may treat under its laws relating to youthful offenders any
Offender so categorized under its laws regardless of his status under the laws of the
Sending State.
3. No sentence of confmement shall be enforced by the Receiving State in such a way as
to extend its duration beyond the date at which it would have terminated according to the
sentence of the court of the Sending State.
4. The Receiving State shall not be entitled to any reimbursement from the Sending State
for the expenses incurred by it in the completion of the Offender's sentence.
I
,I,
I
5. The authorities of each Party shall at the request of the other Party provide reports
indicating the status of all Offenders transfened under this Treaty, including in particular
73
the parole or release of any Offender. Either Party may, at any time; request a special
report on the status of the execution of an individual sentence.
6. The transfer of an Offender under the provisions of this Treaty shall not create any
additional disability under the laws of the Receiving State or any state or province
thereof beyond those which the fact of his conviction may in and of itself already have
created.
I
Article V
Each Party shall regulate by legislation the extent, if any, to which it will entertain
collateral attacks upon the convictions or sentences handed down by it in the cases of
Offenders who have been transferred by it. Upon being informed by the Sending State that
the conviction or sentence has been set aside or otherwise modified, the Receiving State
shall take appropriate action in accordance with such information. The receiving [Page 8]
State shall have no jurisdiction over any proceedings, regardless of their form, intended to
challenge, set aside or otherwise modifY convictions or sentences handed down in the
Sending State.
Article VI
I
An Offender delivered for execution of a sentence under this Treaty may not be detained,
tried or sentenced in the Receiving State for the same offence upon which the sentence to
be executed is based. For purposes of this Article, the Receiving State will not prosecute
for any offence the prosecutiOJi of which would have been ban'ed under the law of that
State, if the sentence had been imposed by a court, federal, state, or provincial, ofthe
Receiving State.
Article VII
If either Party enters into an agreement for the transfer of sanctions with any other State,
the other Party shall cooperate in facilitating the transit through its territory of Offenders
being transferred pursuant to such agreement. The Party intending to make such a transfer
will give advance notice to the other Party of such transfer.
Article VIII
1. This Treaty shall be subject to ratification and shall enter into force on the date on
which instruments of ratification are exchanged. The exchange of instruments of
ratification shall take place at Ottawa as soon as possible.
2. The present Treaty shall remain in force for three years from the date upon which it
enters into force. Thereafter, the Treaty shall continue in force until thirty days from the
date upon which either Party gives written notice to the other Party of its intention to
terminate the Treaty.
[Page 10]
74
IN WlTNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, being duly authorized by their respective
Governments, have signed the present Treaty.
DONE in duplicate, in the French and English languages, each language version being
equally authentic, at Washington this second day of March, 1977.
FRANCIS FOX
For the Government of Canada
GRIFFIN B. BELL
For the Govemment of the United States of America
~=UM=·~ ________________________________
Published October 4 1999, by LexuJn
i
I
I
I
.
Edited by F.P.
Legal Questions Comments Conditions of Use
Address :http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ca us!
© LexUM 1999
w