Andrew M. Czernik

The United States sought the appellant's extradition for his alleged involvement in a telemarketing fraud.

At the extradition hearing, the appellant sought to call a co-conspirator as a witness to challenge the reliability of the co-conspirator's sworn statement and grand jury testimony, which were included in the Record of the Case.

The extradition judge refused to allow the witness to be called because the appellant could not demonstrate the potential relevance of the anticipated evidence to the committal determination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that an extradition judge may require a party to outline the anticipated evidence and demonstrate its relevance to the limited weighing of evidence permitted under the Extradition Act before allowing a witness to be called.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that based on the trial judge's treatment of the complainant's credibility on other charges resulting in acquittals, the confirmatory evidence needed to implicate the appellant in the crime alleged.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and noting the appellant's concession that confirmatory evidence generally does not have to implicate the accused in the criminal aspect of the offences charged.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found no error in principle in the sentence imposed.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.