Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T15:14:33.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

R. v. Hape

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Pierre-Hugues Verdier
Pierre-Hugues Verdier*
Affiliation:
Harvard Law School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 102 , Issue 1 , January 2008 , pp. 143 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 2007 SCC 26 (Sup. Ct. June 7, 2007). The decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada are available at <http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca>.

2 Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982, ch. 11 (UK).

3 The Court also discussed other bases of jurisdiction in international law, including universal jurisdiction (para. 61).

4 R. v. Cook, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 597; see also R. v. Harrer, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; R. v. Terry, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 207; R. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 841 (precedents analyzing extraterritorial application of the Charter to evidence-gathering abroad).

5 Section 7 of the Charter provides: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

6 In particular, section 24(2) of the Charter contemplates the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of Charter rights.

7 See Gibran Van, Ert, Using International Law in Canadian Courts 137-70 (2002)Google Scholar; Jutta, Brunnée & Stephen, J. Toope, A Hesitant Embrace: The Application of International Law by Canadian Courts, 2002 Can. Y.B. Int'l L. 3 Google Scholar.

8 Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of The United States §403 (1987).

9 Leading doctrinal sources cited by the majority do not directly support this holding. See Michael, Akehurst, Jurisdiction in International Law, 1972-73 Brit. Y.B. Int'l L. 145 Google Scholar; Mann, F. A., The Doctrine of International Jurisdiction Revisited After Twenty Years, 186 Recueil Des Cours 9 (1984-III)Google Scholar.

10 It would be otherwise if Canadian law expressly mandated acts prohibited by local law, which was not the case here. See Mann, supra note 9, at 45-46.

11 The question then would have become whether, under Canadian constitutional law, Hape could reasonably expect to enjoy the full benefits of section 8 after deliberately organizing his company and conducting its activities abroad.

12 See Slaight Commons, Inc. v. Davidson, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038,1056 (Dickson, C.J.) (citing Reference re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313, 349 (Dickson, C.J., dissenting)).

13 See, e.g., Hunter v. Southam, Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145, 156.

14 See, e.g., Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).

15 United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990).

16 Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, the Canadian Supreme Court seems to have attached very little significance to the accused's citizenship and other links with Canada.