A. Rice

The United States sought the extradition of the applicant for her alleged role in a telemarketing fraud scheme.

The applicant brought an application for exceptional disclosure, the right to cross-examine police officers, and a stay of proceedings, alleging that the arrest warrant was obtained through deception and executed in violation of her Charter rights.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no air of reality to the allegations of police misconduct, no Charter breaches, and no nexus between the alleged conduct and the extradition committal hearing.

The United States requested the extradition of the applicant for alleged sexual offences.

The applicant brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing that the potential for indefinite civil commitment in Minnesota constituted an abuse of process.

The Crown challenged the court's jurisdiction to hear the application.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding that the extradition judge's role is circumscribed to determining dual criminality under section 29 of the Extradition Act.

The court found no nexus between the potential foreign penalty and the fairness of the committal hearing, concluding that the issue of extreme potential consequences falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice at the surrender stage.

The applicant, a fugitive from the United States facing a sentence for tax evasion and an indictment for failing to surrender, applied for judicial interim release under the Extradition Act.

The court assessed the proposed release plan, which included sureties and electronic monitoring.

The court found that the applicant failed to discharge his reverse onus on both the primary ground (flight risk) and the tertiary ground (public confidence in the administration of justice).

The application for judicial interim release was dismissed and the applicant's continued detention was ordered.