Chris Bundy

The applicant, sought for extradition to the United States for alleged tax fraud, brought an application for the presiding judge to recuse himself.

The recusal application was based on a reasonable apprehension of bias arising after the Crown provided the court with ex parte information concerning public safety and public interest privilege.

The judge appointed amicus curiae to represent the applicant's interests during a closed hearing to determine disclosure of the information.

The judge dismissed the recusal application, finding that the procedures adopted balanced the competing interests and ensured fundamental fairness, such that an informed person would not conclude there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The United States requested the extradition of the respondent for an alleged false tax refund scheme.

The respondent was arrested at the airport on a provisional arrest warrant while attempting to board a flight to Russia.

The respondent applied for a stay of proceedings, arguing that the affidavit supporting the warrant contained material omissions and misrepresentations that falsely portrayed him as a flight risk, amounting to an abuse of process.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the omitted facts were not material to the issuing judge's decision and that the authorities did not attempt to mislead the court.

The court concluded that the conduct did not rise to the level of an abuse of process.

The person sought in an extradition proceeding brought two pre-hearing applications.

First, he sought discharge, arguing the Minister of Justice failed to sign the Authority to Proceed within the strict timelines of the Extradition Act.

Second, he sought disclosure of materials related to the Minister's decision to substitute a new Authority to Proceed and materials from a related Toronto Police Service investigation.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that the Authority to Proceed was signed within the 90-day statutory limit.

The court also held that there was no air of reality to the abuse of process claim regarding the substituted Authority to Proceed, and that the person sought was not entitled to disclosure of the Canadian police investigation because the requesting state did not rely on Canadian-gathered evidence.