Chris N. Buhr

The appellant, a Canadian citizen, appealed his committal for extradition to the United States on drug trafficking charges, arguing that his mobility rights under section 6(1) of the Charter were violated and seeking further disclosure of the Canadian investigation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that section 9(3) of the Extradition Act does not confer expanded Charter jurisdiction on the extradition judge to consider mobility rights, which are only engaged at the ministerial surrender stage.

The Court found that the appellant received adequate disclosure and that the Minister of Justice reasonably exercised his discretion in ordering the surrender, properly considering the appellant's constitutional rights.

The appellant, a Canadian citizen, faced extradition to the United States on charges of telemarketing fraud.

At his committal hearing, he unsuccessfully sought to exclude affidavit evidence from co-conspirators who were awaiting sentence.

On appeal, he sought to adduce fresh evidence consisting of public threats made by the American prosecutor that fugitives resisting extradition would face harsher prison conditions, including sexual violence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to adduce fresh evidence and the appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal should have admitted the fresh evidence.

The Court found that the prosecutor's threats constituted a shocking abuse of process that tainted the judicial phase of the extradition proceedings, and entered a stay of proceedings.