Adrienne Rice

The applicant, a self-represented litigant incarcerated in a foreign prison, sought state-appointed counsel or amicus and a stay of proceedings pending such appointment in connection with his application for leave to appeal the summary dismissal of his applications to stay and terminate a U.S. forfeiture order enforceable in Canada under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

The motion judge applied the three-part test from s. 684(1) of the Criminal Code by analogy, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate insufficient means, lacked arguable grounds of appeal given that his claims constituted collateral attacks on American judgments and Canadian court rulings, and demonstrated exceptional ability to effectively advance his appeal without counsel.

The motion was dismissed, though the Crown was directed to provide logistical support for filing materials.

The United States sought the extradition of Juan Andres Donato Bautista to stand trial in Florida for money laundering offences.

The respondent challenged the extradition on the grounds that a superseding indictment rendered the Record of the Case unreliable and that proceeding would constitute an abuse of process.

The court rejected these arguments, finding that the extradition judge is not concerned with foreign law or foreign charging documents, and that the Authority to Proceed provides the basis for the extradition proceeding.

The court found sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for money laundering and confirmed the respondent's identity.

The respondent was committed into custody to await surrender.

The decision concerns an application for disclosure in the context of extradition proceedings.

The United States seeks the extradition of Juan Andres Donato Bautista to stand trial in Florida for offences corresponding to laundering proceeds of crime under Canadian law.

The applicant sought disclosure of banking records relating to the Baumann Enterprises Limited account, arguing that a letter from the Bank of Singapore contradicted the Record of the Case (ROC) relied upon by the United States.

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the high threshold for disclosure in extradition proceedings, as the evidence did not establish manifest unreliability in the ROC.

The application for disclosure was dismissed.

The applicant, wanted in the United States for identity theft and other offences, was committed for extradition and sought bail pending the Minister of Justice's decision on surrender.

The applicant proposed a release plan involving a surety and electronic monitoring.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet his onus of showing he would surrender into custody, given his history of fleeing the United States, failing to attend court in Canada, and the overwhelming case against him.

The appellant, facing extradition to the U.S. for alleged sexual offenses, appealed his committal order and sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order.

The appeal challenged the dismissal of a disclosure application, arguing a nexus between alleged misconduct during arrest and extradition proceedings, and the committal judge's finding on accessing child pornography, asserting the private use exception.

The judicial review argued the Minister's surrender order was unreasonable due to impermissible delegation and insufficient consultation with IRCC regarding potential deportation to India.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the judicial review, finding no error in the disclosure ruling, confirming the private use exception is a defence not for committal judges, and upholding the Minister's reasonable exercise of discretion and consultation.

The United States sought to extradite the applicant for child luring offences.

The applicant brought a motion to stay the extradition proceedings, arguing abuse of process.

The court found that the provincial Crown breached the applicant's section 7 and 8 Charter rights during a prior domestic prosecution by failing to disclose ongoing interactions with US authorities and by sharing his computer hard drive without limitations.

This misconduct prejudiced the applicant, who pleaded guilty domestically without knowing his full jeopardy.

The court concluded this was one of the clearest of cases where a stay of proceedings was necessary to protect the integrity of the justice system.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order for extradition to the United States on charges including grand theft auto, vehicular homicide, and manslaughter while driving under the influence.

The applicant argued the Minister's decision was unreasonable, contravening s. 7 of the Charter due to concerns about racial discrimination and a failure to consider delaying extradition for health reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding the Minister's decision reasonable and entitled to deference.

The court affirmed the Minister's conclusions that the applicant failed to establish racial persecution and that necessary medical care would be available in the United States.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's order to surrender him for extradition to the United States on charges of child luring and child pornography production.

The applicant challenged the order on two grounds: whether the Minister failed to independently assess the Cotroni factors and whether the Minister sufficiently addressed the applicant's personal circumstances regarding his s. 7 Charter rights and s. 44(1) of the Extradition Act.

The Court of Appeal found no legal error in the Minister's application of the Cotroni factors, noting the Minister considered multiple factors beyond the Attorney General's opinion.

Regarding the s. 7 and s. 44(1) challenge, the court found the Minister's determination that the high threshold for "shocking the conscience" or "unjust or oppressive" was not met, was reasonable, despite acknowledging potential undue hardship from a longer sentence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The person sought in an extradition proceeding brought an application for disclosure of records from the Requesting State (United States), including police interviews and polygraph test results, to support a potential abuse of process claim.

He alleged that he had cooperated with US authorities and passed a polygraph test, which was not mentioned in the Record of the Case.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the person sought failed to meet the first stage of the Larosa test because his affidavit did not provide an evidentiary foundation for an agreement or deal with US authorities that would support a stay for abuse of process.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's order to surrender him for extradition to the United States on child sexual abuse charges.

The applicant argued the surrender was unreasonable due to a significant disparity in potential sentences (a 30-year mandatory minimum in the US versus a 90-day to 3-year range in Canada, where the Canadian mandatory minimum for the equivalent offence had been struck down as cruel and unusual punishment) and the potential for indefinite civil commitment in the US.

The Minister had obtained assurances from the US Department of Justice that the applicant would not face civil commitment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, affirming the Minister's decision as reasonable.

The court reiterated the high deference owed to the Minister in extradition matters, emphasizing that sentence disparity alone, absent extreme circumstances, does not "shock the conscience" of Canadians under section 7 of the Charter, especially when assurances mitigate other risks.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, applied for an order committing the respondent into custody pending a decision on his extradition.

The United States sought the respondent for allegedly preparing fraudulent asylum applications and providing false identification documents.

The court found that the double-criminality requirement was met, as the alleged conduct would constitute counselling misrepresentation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act if committed in Canada.

The court also dismissed the respondent's arguments regarding identity, finding sufficient evidence that the respondent was the person sought.

The committal order was granted.

The Attorney General of Canada applied under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to send a cell phone and forensic search results to the United States for a murder investigation.

The respondent, who was arrested in Canada for an immigration violation, argued that his Charter rights were breached because the search exceeded the warrant's time limit and scope, and he was not properly informed of his right to counsel.

The court found no breach regarding the timing of the search or the right to counsel, but held that extracting the web browser history violated s. 8 of the Charter as the warrant was limited to communications.

The court allowed the application in part, ordering the phone and communications to be sent, but excluding the web browser history.

The United States sought the extradition of the applicant for allegedly counselling individuals to make false asylum claims.

The applicant sought further disclosure regarding the eyewitness identification process, arguing the evidence was manifestly unreliable.

The court dismissed the application, finding it was a fishing expedition and the applicant failed to demonstrate that the requested disclosure would establish manifest unreliability.

The applicant, Clara Eva Boros, sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's order to surrender her to Romania for extradition.

The Minister's decision regarding the significant delay in the extradition process, spanning over 18 years, was found to be unreasonable due to a lack of transparent investigation into when Romanian authorities became aware of the applicant's presence in Canada and an insufficient explanation for the delay on the Canadian side.

The Court of Appeal allowed the application, remitting the matter back to the Minister for reconsideration with specific directions for further inquiry and explanation regarding the delays.

The applicants, awaiting extradition hearings, challenged the constitutionality of sections 2(2) and 3(2) of the Department of Justice Act as applied to the Extradition Act.

They argued that vesting the distinct roles of Minister of Justice and Attorney General in a single elected individual violates section 7 of the Charter by creating an apprehension of bias.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that it was bound by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Idziak, which held that the distinct phases of the extradition process permit the Minister to perform both roles without violating the principles of fundamental justice.

An applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's order to surrender him to the United States to face drug trafficking and conspiracy charges.

The applicant argued that surrender would be unjust or oppressive due to serious health conditions including schizophrenia, epilepsy, and prostate cancer, and that extradition would cause significant harm.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Minister's decision, finding that the Minister applied the correct legal test under section 44(1)(a) of the Extradition Act, properly considered the overall effects of surrender including available medical care in the U.S., and was entitled to rely on information from U.S. authorities regarding treatment availability.

The Attorney General of Canada sought an adjournment of a judicial review application regarding a surrender order to Romania dated March 4, 2019.

The applicant had been in custody in Canada since October 31, 2016, and was subject to a three-year sentence in Romania with credit for time served.

The court granted the adjournment to permit the Minister of Justice to reconsider the surrender decision in light of alleged violations of the Extradition Act, directing reconsideration to occur as soon as possible.

The applicant, sought for extradition to the United States, brought a motion to adjourn his extradition hearing and to join it with two unrelated extradition hearings involving different individuals represented by the same counsel.

The purpose of the joinder was to hear a common Charter challenge regarding the dual role of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General under the Extradition Act.

The court dismissed the application for joinder, noting that such an application must be made to the Chief Justice or her designate pursuant to s. 551.7 of the Criminal Code.

However, the court granted the adjournment to allow the applicant to serve and file his Charter application.

The appellant appealed a committal order for extradition to the United States on charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud, and possession and transmission of counterfeit money orders.

The domestic equivalent offence was possession of property obtained by crime.

The appellant challenged whether the evidence met the standard of proof on two essential elements: identification as a participant in the scheme and knowledge of the criminal origins of the funds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the committal order, finding that the evidence of identical names and dates of birth, combined with circumstantial evidence, satisfied the identification requirement, and that the totality of the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to conclude the appellant knew the funds were proceeds of fraud.

The appellant's application for judicial review of the Minister's surrender order was dismissed as abandoned.

The United States requested the extradition of Karan Uppal for trafficking MDMA.

The Minister of Justice issued an Authority to Proceed.

Uppal opposed committal, arguing insufficient evidence for identity and knowledge, and that a cooperating witness's evidence was unreliable due to anonymity.

The court found prima facie evidence for identity based on law enforcement identifications and rejected the argument that the cooperating witness's evidence was manifestly unreliable.

The court also found sufficient evidence to infer Uppal's knowledge of the drugs, noting the large quantities and multiple incidents.

The request for committal was granted.