The problems aren’t always caused by unrepresented litigants.
- The Attorney General of Canada v. Maria Valde [1], 2011 ONSC 328
- “In the Matter of an Application pursuant to section 29 of the Extradition Act for an order committing the Respondent to await the Minister’s decision on whether the Respondent should be surrendered to the Republic of Hungary”
- [1] The Republic of Hungary seeks the extradition of Maria Valde a.k.a. Maria Ramsay to face charges for conduct considered criminal in Canada, namely fraud. For the reasons that follow, I dismiss the application.
- [7] The test for committal is set out in s. 29(1)(a) namely that the extradition judge shall order committal if there is evidence admissible of conduct that, had it occurred in Canada, would justify committal for trial in Canada of the offence at issue.
- [42] I agree with the submission by counsel for the respondent that, with respect to Lakatos, Domonkos and Frankovics there is no evidence of a dishonest act, deprivation caused by the dishonest act, or knowledge of a dishonest act on the part of Ms. Valde. None of the evidence with respect to those debts satisfies even the minimal test required by s. 29.
- [47] Counsel for the applicant made submissions to the effect that since Ms. Valde borrowed from the other offended parties and did not repay the loans, that I should rely on that evidence to support the inference of dishonest conduct and knowledge with respect to Zerczi-Juhasz. As indicated above, I am not persuaded that there is any evidence of the essential elements of the offences of fraud as it relates to those offended parties. Consequently, those transactions are not relevant to whether the essential elements of the offence of fraud have been established in the case of Zerczi-Juhasz.
- [48] The application for an order committing Ms. Valde to await the Minister’s decision regarding her surrender to Hungary is dismissed.
Let’s assume that the motion judge’s description of the contents of the A-G for Canada’s case is correct. On that assumption, we should also conclude that somebody senior enough amongst the lawyers in the A-G for Canada’s office should have come to the same conclusion. (There are remarkably skilled people there, in addition to those who are merely very good at what they do.) I am not casting aspersions at the lawyer who appeared on behalf of the A-G. She had what she was given. The real question is, again, why the application was brought at all, if the motion judge’s description of the Crown’s material is accurate.
Let’s hope it wasn’t politics. (The UAE might matter, but Hungary? What’s Hungary going to do to us? Cut back on exports of edible goulash? Ban the playing of Czardas [2] at Canadian weddings and bar / bat mitzvahs? )