2020 QCCA 1511, 2020 QCCA 1511

Egorho c. Minister of Justice Canada 2020 QCCA 1511 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-10-007116-195 ( 500-36-009124-184 ) MINUTES OF HEARING DATE: November 11, 2020 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A. JOCELYN F. RANCOURT, J.A. LUCIE FOURNIER, J.A.

PETITIONNER COUNSEL Ejovwoke Mark Egorho Mtre ANDREW BARBACKI ( André Barbacki ) By videoconference Mtre BENJAMIN WILNER ( Shadley Bien-Aimé ) By videoconference RESPONDENT COUNSEL Minister of Justice Canada Mtre CLAUDINE DIB ( Minister of Justice Canada ) By videoconference IMPLEADED PARTY COUNSEL The United States of America Mtre CLAUDINE DIB ( Minister of Justice Canada ) By videoconference Application for judicial review of a decision of the Minister of Justice, the Honourable David Lametti, rendered on June 18, 2019 ordering the surrender for extradition of the petitioner.

NATURE OF THE APPEAL: Extradition – Judicial Review. Application to postpone hearing on judicial review or stay execution of judgment pending minister’s decision on additional submissions (Sections 42 & 43(2) Extradition Act ). Application for judicial interim release pending final decision on judicial review of the minister’s decision to surrender for extradition ( Sections 679(1) of the Criminal Code , 20(

c) of the Extradition Act and s. 31 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal in Criminal Matters ). Application to abridge the delay for presentation of motions to the Court (Section 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal in Criminal Matters ). Clerk at the hearing : Anne Dumont Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 14:01 Commencement of the hearing. Discussion between the Court and the parties regarding the fact that the Petitioner did not report to the detention centre in violation of his bail conditions.

Verbal request : Mtre Dib asks the Court to dismiss the judicial review. 14:03 Comments by Mtre Barbacki. 14:05 Discussions between the Court and Mtre Barbacki. 14:07 Comments by Mtre Dib. 14:09 Discussions between the Court and the parties. 14:14 Recess of the hearing. 14:29 Resumption of the hearing.

The Court will not dismiss the judicial review. 14:33 Discussion between the Court and the parties. 14:37 Submissions by Mtre Barbacki on the judicial review. 14:47 Submissions by Mtre Dib on the judicial review. 14:54 Reply by Mtre Barbacki. 14:57 Question by the Court and response by Mtre Barbacki. 14:59 Comments by Mtre Dib. 14:59 Recess of the hearing. 15:11 Resumption of the hearing. 15:12 BY THE COURT : Judgment – see page 5. 15:13 Discussion between the Court and the parties. Mtre Dib is informing the Court that Mr. Egorho is not at the detention centre and that his whereabouts are unknown.

Mtre Barbacki has no objection to filing the email exchange between Mtre Dib and Mrs. Tremblay from the detention centre. 15:15 Conclusion of the hearing. Anne Dumont, Clerk at the hearing

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Court is seized of an initial application for the judicial review of a decision dated June 18, 2019 by the Minister of Justice of Canada ordering Mr.

Egorho’s surrender to the United States of America. [ 2 ] The Petitioner submitted three new applications: an application to postpone the hearing of the application for judicial review or to stay the execution of the judgment pending the Minister’s decision on additional submissions, an application for judicial interim release pending the final decision on the judicial review of the Minister’s decision to have the Petitioner surrender for extradition purposes, and an application to abridge the time limit for the presentation of said applications. [ 3 ] Mr.

Egorho is currently out on bail and, according to a bail condition, was required to surrender himself into custody before 4 p.m. yesterday (November 10, 2020). He did not do so. The detention centre confirmed that he did not present himself today either (emails to that effect are filed in the record). His whereabouts are unknown. [ 4 ] That said, on November 9, 2020, Mr. Barbacki, on behalf of the Petitioner filed further submissions with the Minister.

Given that the Petitioner was to surrender himself and given that the further submissions required a new answer, the above-mentioned applications were filed. [ 5 ] On November 10, 2020, the Petitioner received an answer to his new submissions. He announced that he would be filing a second application for judicial review regarding that second answer. [ 6 ] In view of this quickly evolving situation, the Court informed the parties that it would reserve judgment after the hearing on the first application for judicial review and grant a period of time to file the second application for judicial review. Since Mr.

Egorho is not incarcerated at this time, the application for interim release is obviously premature. Thus the three applications filed are moot. [ 7 ] The Court heard submissions on the initial application for judicial review. As announced, the Court will reserve its decision and the Petitioner will have thirty days (until December 11, 2020) to file his second application for judicial review with this panel, with a ten- page written argument as well as a book of authorities if needed. [ 8 ] The Petitioner will advise the Court if he decides not to file a second application for judicial review.

If he so advises the Court, or if he fails to file a second application for judicial review within the allotted period of time, the Court will render judgment on his current application. If he does file the second application, the Respondent will have thirty days (until January 11, 2021) to file its own written ten-page argument and a book of authorities. The Court will then render its decision on the entire matter. [ 9 ] Finally, the panel reserves the possibility of scheduling a new hearing on the second application for judicial review. MARTIN VAUCLAIR, J.A. JOCELYN F. RANCOURT, J.A. LUCIE FOURNIER, J.A.