## Facts

- Joseph John Kindler was convicted of first-degree murder in Pennsylvania and sentenced to death.
- Before exhausting appeals, he escaped custody and fled to Canada, where he was arrested.
- The United States sought Kindler’s extradition under the Canada–U.S. Extradition Treaty.
- A Canadian extradition judge ordered committal to await surrender under the Extradition Act and concluded the judge lacked jurisdiction to require U.S. assurances that the death penalty would not be imposed or carried out.
- Kindler pursued habeas corpus and later judicial review, challenging both the committal and the Minister of Justice’s surrender decision; the lower courts rejected his challenges.
- The Minister invited written submissions and heard oral argument from Kindler’s lawyers, but denied Kindler’s request to personally address the Minister.
- The Minister ordered surrender without seeking assurances against execution.

## Issues

1. Whether ordering surrender without death-penalty assurances violated section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (life, liberty, and security of the person; principles of fundamental justice).
2. Whether surrender without assurances violated section 12 of the Charter (cruel and unusual treatment or punishment).
3. Whether the Minister’s decision-making process was procedurally unfair by denying Kindler a personal oral hearing.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal (4–3) and upheld the surrender order.
- The majority held that surrender without seeking death-penalty assurances did not violate section 7; extradition would breach fundamental justice only in exceptional cases where the result would “shock the conscience.”
- The majority held section 12 did not bar extradition in circumstances where the foreign state might impose the death penalty; extradition was treated as distinct from the foreign punishment.
- The Court held the Minister’s process satisfied the duty of fairness because counsel made oral submissions and written materials were considered; a personal oral hearing was not required.
- Dissenting judges would have required the Minister to seek assurances, citing Canadian rejection of capital punishment and concerns about the death sentence and prolonged death-row confinement.

## Legal Principles

- Extradition may engage section 7, but a Charter breach requires exceptional circumstances; surrender is unconstitutional only where its consequences would “shock the conscience” and offend fundamental justice.
- In extradition, section 7 permits balancing individual interests against legitimate state interests, including treaty compliance, international cooperation in law enforcement, and avoiding Canada becoming a refuge for serious offenders.
- Section 12 was interpreted as primarily restraining punishments imposed by Canadian authorities; extradition to face a foreign death sentence was not treated as Canadian imposition of cruel and unusual punishment.
- The duty of procedural fairness in ministerial extradition decisions is context-specific; where the person is represented and counsel is heard, the Minister may decide the matter without granting the person a personal oral hearing.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the Minister’s decision to extradite Kindler to the United States without death-penalty assurances, finding no violation of Charter sections 7 or 12 and no procedural unfairness in the Minister’s process, while recognizing that only rare extradition outcomes so offensive to Canadian fundamental justice would be barred.


Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779 (Can.)