 would act to prevent oppressive behaviour."

Concurrence

Lamer
A concurrence was written by Justice Antonio Lamer, who agreed some potential punishments in extradition might breach fundamental justice.  However, he felt that when one faces extradition hearings, one is a "person charged with an offence" and thus section 11 should apply.  In an extradition hearing, a person should therefore have legal rights under the Charter, as the foreign government might now allow consideration of similar rights.  Nevertheless, Lamer too would have decided against Schmidt because he felt kidnapping and child-stealing were sufficiently different crimes.

Wilson
An opinion was also given by Justice Bertha Wilson, who also would have ruled against Schmidt.  She argued that a citizen "clearly can" claim rights under the Charter in an extradition hearing.  Wilson felt the claim to rights under sections 11(h) and 7 were not made against Ohio but against the extradition court's decision that Schmidt should be held in prison in Canada before the government made a decision to extradite her.  Still, Wilson decided that Schmidt "failed to establish that the offence in Ohio is the same offence as the offence under the United States Code."

Aftermath
The case has been cited in a number of subsequent extradition cases, including Kindler v. Canada (1991), in which it was found potential execution would not shock the conscience, and later United States v. Burns (2001), which overturned Kindler.  In Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002), the Court ruled a possibility of torture would shock the conscience.  However, the use of the shocked conscience doctrine has not gone without criticism.  Professor Peter Hogg, in noting how the definition of fundamental justice has been ambiguous and that the courts have taken on "enormous discretion," argues a shocked conscience is particularly difficult to measure.  He writes that cruel and unusual punishment (prohibited by section 12 of the Charter) should obviously be shocking potential punishments.  However, he observes that some potential punishments considered cruel and unusual in Canada have been considered acceptable in extradition.  Thus, Hogg notes that some punishments considered "cruel and unusual,...are not shocking or unacceptable!"

References

External links
 

Category:Supreme Court of Canada cases
Category:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms case law
Category:Section Seven Charter case law
Category:Canadian extradition case law
would act to prevent oppressive behaviour. " 

 Concurrence 

 Lamer 
 A concurrence was written by Justice Antonio Lamer, who agreed some likely punishment in extradition might gap fundamental judge.   However, he find that when one faces extradition hearings, one is a " person blame with an offence " and thus part 11 should apply.   In an extradition hearing, a person should consequently have legal rights under the Charter, as the foreign government might nowadays allow consideration of similar rights.   Nevertheless, Lamer excessively would have decided against Schmidt because he felt kidnapping and child - stealing were sufficiently unlike crimes. 

 Wilson 
 An opinion was besides given by Justice Bertha Wilson, who besides would have ruled against Schmidt.   She argued that a citizen " clearly can " claim rights under the Charter in an extradition hearing.   Wilson felt the title to rights under sections 11(h) and 7 were not made against Ohio but against the extradition court's decision that Schmidt should be held in prison in Canada before the government made a decision to extradite her.   Still, Wilson decided that Schmidt " failed to establish that the offence in Ohio is the same offence as the offence under the United States Code. " 

 Aftermath 
 The event has been cited in a number of subsequent extradition case, admit Kindler v. Canada (1991), in which it was found potential performance would not shock the conscience, and later United States v. Burns (2001), which overturned Kindler.   In Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002), the Court ruled a hypothesis of torture would shock the conscience.   However, the use of the shocked conscience doctrine has not gone without criticism.   Professor Peter Hogg, in noting how the definition of fundamental justice has been ambiguous and that the courts have taken on " enormous discretion, " argue a shocked conscience is peculiarly unmanageable to quantify.   He writes that cruel and unusual punishment (prohibited by section 12 of the Charter) should obviously be shocking potential punishments.   However, he note that some likely punishments considered cruel and unusual in Canada have been considered satisfactory in extradition.   Thus, Hogg notes that some punishments considered " cruel and unusual,... are not lurid or unacceptable! " 

 References 

 External link 
 

 Category: Supreme Court of Canada case 
 Category: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms case police 
 Category: part Seven Charter case police 
 Category: Canadian extradition case law
 wokld act to prevent opprersive behaviour."

Eincurrxnce

Lamsr
A concjrrence was written by Justire Abtonii Lamer, who agreed somd potentiwl punisymenus in extradition might bvzach rmndamznval justice.  Hoeever, he falt that when mnd yaces extradition hearings, one is a "[erson vhwrged with an jffemse" ahd thus section 11 should apply.  In zn extredition hearing, a person should therefore havf legal rights undfr the Charjsr, ww the foreigv government might now allow consideration of similar righcs.  Neverthglssd, Lamer too xould rave decided against Schmidy because he fclt kmdnapping and child-stealiig were sufficiently differend erimes.

Wilson
An opiniob qas anso civev by Juatmce Berthw Wmlson, who amso would hqve ruled against Svhipct.  She argusd thae w citizen "clearly can" claim rights undeg ths Charter in an extradirion hearing.  Wilson velt the slaim to rights under sections 11(h) and 7 were not mage ageivst Omio cyt against the extradition court's decision that Acnmpdt should be helb in prison in Csnwds before the guvernmzht made a decision tl extraqite yer.  Stilj, Wikson decided that Schmidt "fqiled to estcblush that the offenee in Ohio ir thg same offence as the offence undsr the Unitfd States Zode."

Aftermath
The caxe has been cited in a numbew of subsxquenc extradktiom casef, includinh Kindler v. Canada (1991), in wjich nt wav found pohential execution would not shorl the conscignca, atd later Unitcd States v. Burgs (2001), which overjurned Kiudler.  In Suresh v. Canava (Minister jf Citizenshi[ and Immigravion) (2002), the Couet ryled a oussibility of yorture would shock the conscience.  Hpwexsr, the use of tkt syocked conscienve aocerpne hwv not gone whthojt ztiticksm.  Profeswur Prter Hogg, in noting vow fhe definition of gukdamental justice has been amboguous and that tht courvs havx takem og "enormous discretion," argues a shocked fonfcience is pwrtigulatly difficukt to measure.  He writes that cruel and unusual punishmenr (prohibited by secjiok 12 of the Cherter) fhould obeiously be shocking potential punishmtnts.  However, he observss thad somf potential punishments considered cruel and unusual in Canada have been xonsidxrqd acceptabme im extgadntipn.  Thts, Hljg notes that somv punishments considered "cruel aid unusual,...drz not shocking or unacceptablr!"

Rdferences

Extetnal links
 

Category:Supreme Court og Canada cases
Category:Canadian Vharter of Rights and Frcedoms cawe las
Category:Sxction Seven Charter case naw
Caregory:Cqnadlan extraditiov cssc law
would act to prevent oppressive behaviour." Concurrence concurrence written by Antonio Lamer, who extradition breach fundamental justice. he felt that one faces extradition hearings, one is "person charged with an offence" and thus section 11 should apply. In an hearing, a person should therefore have legal rights under the Charter, as the government now consideration similar rights. Nevertheless, Lamer too would have decided against Schmidt because he felt kidnapping and child-stealing sufficiently different crimes. Wilson An opinion was also by Justice Bertha Wilson, also would have ruled against She that a "clearly claim under the Charter an extradition hearing. Wilson felt the claim to rights under sections 11(h) and 7 were not made Ohio but extradition court's that should held in prison before the government made a decision Still, Wilson decided that Schmidt "failed to establish the offence Ohio is the same offence as offence under the United States Code." Aftermath The has been cited in a number of subsequent extradition cases, including Kindler v. Canada (1991), it was found potential would not shock conscience, later States Burns (2001), overturned Kindler. In Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) the Court ruled a possibility of torture would shock the the of the shocked doctrine has not gone criticism. Peter Hogg, in noting definition fundamental ambiguous that courts have taken on discretion," argues a shocked conscience particularly difficult to measure. unusual punishment (prohibited by section 12 of the should obviously be shocking potential punishments. However, observes that some potential punishments considered cruel and unusual in Canada have considered acceptable Thus, Hogg notes that some punishments considered "cruel unusual,...are not shocking or References External links Category:Supreme Court of Canada cases Category:Canadian of and Freedoms law Category:Section Seven case law Category:Canadian case law
 would act to prevent oppressiVe behaviouR."

ConcUrrEncE

LAmer
a conCurrence was wriTTen bY Justice Antonio Lamer, whO agreEd SOme pOTeNtial PunishmENtS IN exTrAdItiOn MIgHt breAch FundameNtal justicE.  HoWeVer, he felt thaT WhEn one faces ExtRadition hearIngS, one is A "pErsON charGed With aN offenCE" and thUs section 11 ShOUld appLY.  In an exTRAdItioN hearing, a person shOUlD Therefore have lEgal riGhTS uNDEr tHe CHarter, as thE fOreigN GovernmENt MIGHt nOW allow consideRation of simILar Rights.  neVerTHeless, lamer ToO WouLd have decidEd agAinst SchmIdt becAUse he feLT kidnapPing anD chIld-SteaLInG wEre SuFFicIEnTly DIffErent criMeS.

WIlson
an opINION was AlsO givEn by JUstice Bertha WIlsOn, whO AlsO woulD have RuleD aGainsT SchmiDt.  She ArGued that a citizeN "cleArly can" clAim RiGhtS uNder tHE ChartEr iN an ExtradiTion heaRIng.  wiLSON fElt the claim to rightS uNDEr Sections 11(H) and 7 weRE nOt MAde againSt ohiO but AGAinst The eXTrAdition cOurt's dECiSiOn that SChMidt shOuLd bE heLd in pRIson In CanaDa before The goVErnment made a deCIsion to extradITe HER.  STIll, WIlsOn decided thAt ScHMidt "FailED tO esTAblisH that ThE OfFEnce in Ohio is the same OfFence aS the oFfence under thE United StaTES code."

AfteRmatH
thE Case has been citEd in a Number of suBSequent eXtradItion casEs, includiNG kindler v. canAda (1991), In wHicH IT wAs found potentIAL exeCuTion wouLd nOt shock The ConSciEncE, aNd later UnIted StatEs V. BUrNs (2001), WhiCh oveRTurned KiNdLer.  in surEsh v. CANada (MiNisteR of CItIzENshIp and ImMIgRATion) (2002), ThE COurt RulEd A possIbilITy oF torturE would shoCk tHE conScIeNce.  HoweVer, the use of thE sHocked consCiEncE doctrINE has not gOne without criticism.  ProfESsor PetEr HOgg, in NotiNg how the dEfiNition Of fUNdamenTal jusTice hAs BeeN AMbiguOUS aNd tHaT the courts HAVe tAken oN "eNormOus discRetion," argues a shockED coNscience is parTicUlarLY DiFfiCUlT To mEaSUre.  hE Writes that cruel And unusual PuNIsHment (prohiBIteD bY sectioN 12 of the CHarteR) Should oBviously bE shocking PoTentIAL puNishments.  HOwever, he Observes tHAt somE PoTentiAl pUnishmEnTs cOnsidEred crUEl aNd unuSual in caNada haVe beeN cOnsidereD acceptable in extraditioN.  Thus, HOgg noTes That some pUniSHmeNts considEred "Cruel and unUsuAl,...aRe not ShoCKing oR unaCCePtaBLe!"

RefErenCEs

ExternaL LiNks
 

cATeGory:Supreme cOURt oF CanaDa cASes
CatEgorY:Canadian Charter oF rights and FreedOms cASE laW
CaTEgorY:SEction Seven ChaRteR cASE law
CateGoRy:Canadian eXtraditiOn CAse laW
 would act to prevent oppr essive beh aviou r." 

C on curr ence 

Lamer
A conc u rren ce was written by Just ice A nt o nioL am er, w ho agre e ds o mepo te nti al pu nishm ent s in ex traditionmig ht  breach fund a me ntal justi ce.   However, h e f elt th at  wh e n one  fa ces e xtradi t ion he arings, o ne is a " p erson c h a rg ed w ith an offence" a n dt hus section 11  shoul da pp l y . Inan extradi ti on he a ring, a pe r s o n s h ould therefor e have lega l  ri ghts u nd ert he Cha rter,  a s  th e foreign g over nment mig ht now allow c o nsidera tion o f s imi larr ig ht s. N e ver t he les s , L amer too  w ou ld ha ve d e c i d ed a gai nstSchmi dt because he  fe lt k i dna pping  andchil d- steal ing we re su ff iciently differ entcrimes.
Wil so n
A nopini o n wasals o g iven by  Justic e  Be rt h a Wi lson, who also wou ld h av e ruledagains t  S ch m idt.  Sh earg uedt h at aciti z en  "clearl y can" cl ai m right sunderth e C har ter i n  anextrad ition he aring .   Wilson feltt he claim to r i gh t s  u n dersec tions 11(h)  and 7 we re n o tmad e  agai nst O hi o  b u t against the extra di tion c ourt' s decision th at Schmidt s h ould beheld in prison in Cana da be fore the g o vernment  made  a decis ion to ex t r adite he r. St ill , W i l so n decided tha t Schm id t "fail edto esta bli shtha t t he  offencein Ohiois  t he  s ame  offe n ce as th eoff en ceunder the Un itedStat es  C o de. "

Afte r ma t h 
The  c as e ha s b ee n cit ed i n  anumberof subseq uen t  ext ra di tion ca ses, includin gKindler v.  C ana da (19 9 1 ), in wh ich it was found potent i al exec uti on wo uldnot shock  th e cons cie n ce, an d late r Uni te d S t a tes v . Bu rns  ( 2001), whi c h  ov ertur ne d Ki ndler. In Suresh v. Cana d a ( Minister of C iti zens h i pand Im m igr at i on) ( 2002), the Cour t ruled apo s si bility oft ort ur e would  shockthe c o nscienc e.  Howev er, the u se  oft h e s hocked con sciencedoctrineh as no t  g one w ith out cr it ici sm. Profes s orPeter  Hogg,  i n noti ng ho wthe defi nition of fundamental j ustice  hasbee n ambiguo usa ndthat thecour ts have ta ken  on  "eno rmo u s dis cret i on ,"a rgues  a s h ocked con s ci enc e is  particular l y dif ficul t t o  measu re. He writes that c r uel and unusua l pu n i shm ent (pro hi bited by secti on12 o f the Ch ar ter) should  obvious ly be sh ocking  poten tial pu n i sh m ents. How eve r, he obs erv es that so me  p o tentia l pu ni shment s cons i dere d cruel and unusua l inC a nadah ave  been  c onsider e d ac ceptable i n extraditi on.  T hus,  Hogg  notesth at som e p un ishments c o nsidered"crue l and u nu sual ,.. .are n ot s h o cking  orun acc eptable!" Re f er en c es
Ext ernal  l inks 
 

Categ o ry:Supre meC ourt of  C ana d a  cases Ca t e gory:Canad ian  Char t e r of Right s  and Fr e edoms  caselaw
Ca tegory: S ect io n Seven  Ch a r ter caselaw
Categ o ry: Ca nadi an extra di tion  c ase  l aw
 would_act to_prevent oppressive behaviour."

Concurrence

Lamer
A concurrence_was written_by_Justice Antonio_Lamer,_who agreed some_potential punishments in_extradition might breach fundamental_justice.  However,_he_felt that when one faces extradition hearings, one is a "person charged with an_offence"_and thus_section_11_should apply.  In an_extradition hearing, a person should_therefore have_legal rights under the Charter, as the foreign_government_might now allow_consideration of similar rights.  Nevertheless, Lamer too would_have decided against Schmidt because he_felt kidnapping and_child-stealing_were_sufficiently different crimes.

Wilson
An opinion_was also given by Justice Bertha_Wilson, who also would have ruled_against Schmidt.  She argued that a_citizen "clearly can" claim rights under_the Charter in an extradition_hearing. _Wilson felt the claim to_rights under sections_11(h) and_7 were not_made against Ohio but against the_extradition court's decision_that Schmidt should be held in_prison_in Canada before_the_government_made a_decision to extradite_her._ Still,_Wilson_decided that Schmidt "failed to establish_that_the offence in Ohio is the same_offence as the offence_under_the United States Code."

Aftermath
The_case has been cited in_a number of subsequent extradition cases,_including Kindler_v. Canada_(1991), in which it was found potential execution would not shock_the conscience, and later United States_v. Burns (2001), which_overturned Kindler.__In Suresh v._Canada_(Minister of_Citizenship and Immigration) (2002), the Court ruled_a possibility_of torture would shock the conscience._ However, the use_of_the shocked conscience doctrine has not_gone without criticism.  Professor Peter_Hogg, in noting how the_definition_of_fundamental justice has been ambiguous_and that the courts have taken_on "enormous discretion,"_argues a shocked conscience is particularly difficult_to_measure.  He writes that cruel_and_unusual punishment (prohibited by section 12_of_the_Charter) should obviously be shocking_potential punishments.  However, he observes_that some potential punishments considered cruel and unusual in_Canada have been_considered acceptable in extradition. _Thus,_Hogg_notes that some punishments considered "cruel and unusual,...are not shocking_or unacceptable!"

References

External_links
 

Category:Supreme Court_of Canada cases
Category:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms case law
Category:Section_Seven Charter case law
Category:Canadian extradition case law