United States of America v. Tsioubris, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 613, 2001 SCC 20
James Tsioubris Appellant
v.
United States of America Respondent
Indexed as: United States of America v. Tsioubris
Neutral citation: 2001 SCC 20.
File No.: 27774.
2000: March 24; 2001: April 5.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario
Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Fundamental justice – Remedies -- Extradition -- Whether considerations relating to fundamental justice engaged at committal stage of extradition process -- Whether extradition judge ought to have waited for ministerial decision on surrender before granting stay -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 24 -- Extradition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-23, s. 9(3).
Extradition -- Extradition process -- Scope of Charter jurisdiction of extradition judge at committal stage -- Whether extradition judge had jurisdiction to entertain considerations relating to fundamental justice at committal stage of extradition process and to remedy breach of fundamental justice by granting stay of proceedings -- Whether extradition judge ought to have waited for ministerial decision on surrender before granting stay -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 24 -- Extradition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-23, s. 9(3).
Extradition -- Extradition process -- Abuse of process -- Whether doctrine of abuse of process can be invoked at committal stage of extradition process -- Whether extradition judge ought to have waited for ministerial decision on surrender before granting stay.
The facts and issues raised in this appeal are identical to those of the companion case United States of America v. Cobb, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 587, 2001 SCC 19. The appellant is a Canadian citizen resisting extradition to the U.S. on charges of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud. The extradition judge concluded that the U.S. had presented a prima facie case against the appellant, but granted a stay of proceedings on the basis of statements made by the American judge and prosecuting attorney assigned to the case. The Court of Appeal set aside the stay and remitted the matter to the extradition judge for the formal issuance of a warrant of committal.
Held: The appeal should be allowed.
For the reasons given in Cobb, the order staying the extradition proceedings should be reinstated.
Cases Cited
Followed: United States of America v. Cobb, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 587, 2001 SCC 19; referred to: United States of America v. Kwok, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 532, 2001 SCC 18; United States of America v. Shulman, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 616, 2001 SCC 21.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1999), 139 C.C.C. (3d) 283 (sub nom. United States of America v. Cobb), 125 O.A.C. 122, allowing the respondent’s appeal from a judgment of the Ontario Court (General Division) (1997), 11 C.R. (5th) 310, granting a stay of proceedings. Appeal allowed.
James Stribopoulos and Paul Cooper, for the appellant.
David Littlefield and Kevin Wilson, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
Arbour J. – This appeal was heard together with United States of America v. Kwok, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 532, 2001 SCC 18, United States of America v. Cobb, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 587, 2001 SCC 19, and United States of America v. Shulman, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 616, 2001 SCC 21, all released concurrently. The appellant is a Canadian citizen resisting extradition to the United States of America on charges of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.
1 I have set out the facts of this appeal in the companion case of Cobb. The appellant, James Tsioubris, was one of the several individuals accused of mail and wire fraud in a Pennsylvania indictment. His extradition in connection with those charges was sought in the same Diplomatic Note which sought the extradition of Cobb and Grossman and his extradition hearing and appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal were joined with theirs. Although Tsioubris did not seek leave to appeal to this Court at the same time as the other two, the grounds for his appeal are essentially the same.
2 Consequently, for the reasons given in Cobb, I would allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Court of Appeal for Ontario and reinstate the order of Hawkins J. staying the extradition proceedings.
Appeal allowed.
Solicitors for the appellant: Fleming, Breen, Toronto.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Department of Justice, Toronto.