United States of America v. Link and Green

United States of America v. Link and Green
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1955-03-07
Report
[1955] SCR 183
Judges
Kerwin, Patrick; Taschereau, Robert; Rand, Ivan Cleveland; Kellock, Roy Lindsay; Estey, James Wilfred; Locke, Charles Holland; Cartwright, John Robert; Fauteux, Joseph Honoré Gérald; Abbott, Douglas Charles
On appeal from
Quebec
Subjects
Appeal
Decision Content
Supreme Court of Canada
United States of America v. Link and Green, [1955] S.C.R. 183
Date: 1955-03-07
The United States Of America Appellant;
and
Walter H. Link And Harry H. Green Respondents.
1955: March 7.
Present: Kerwin C.J. and Taschereau, Rand, Kellock, Estey, Locke, Cartwright, Fauteux and Abbott JJ.
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
Appeal—Jurisdiction—Extradition—Refusal of judge to issue warrant of committal under Extradition Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 322, s. 18—Whether judgment within Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 259.
The refusal of a judge of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec to issue a warrant of committal under s. 18 of the Extradition Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 322, is not a judgment within the meaning of s. 41 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 259. Consequently, this Court has no jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal from such refusal.
T. H. Montgomery for the applicant.
M. Gross for the respondent Link.
M. Gaboury, Q.C. for the respondent Green.
D. H. W. Henry for the Attorney General of Canada.
G. Hill, Q.C. for the Attorney General of Quebec.
This was an application under s. 41 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 259, for leave to appeal from the refusal of Chief Justice Scott, of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, to issue a warrant for the committal of the respondents under s. 18 of the Extradition Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 322.
The Court requested Mr. Montgomery to deal first with the question of the jurisdiction of this Court to grant leave. At the conclusion of his argument Counsel for the Attorney General of Canada and for the Attorney General of Quebec stated that they took no position with reference to that question. Without calling on Counsel for the respondents the Chief Justice announced that the Members of the Court were unanimously of the opinion that there was no jurisdiction, as the refusal of Chief Justice Scott was not a judgment, as defined by s. 2(d), within the meaning of s. 41 of the Supreme Court Act.
Application refused.