Clemente Monterosso

The Court dismissed the appeal from both the committal order and the surrender order in an extradition case involving child-abduction charges sought by the United States.

The majority held the extradition judge exceeded her limited committal role by weighing defence and exculpatory evidence instead of applying the prima facie committal test and the presumption of reliability of the record of the case.

At surrender, the Minister reasonably considered both the possible defence issue and the children’s best interests and reasonably concluded surrender was not unjust or oppressive under the Extradition Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and reinstated the Minister of Justice’s surrender order in an extradition matter.

The Court held the Minister’s decision was reasonable, that a possible fourth trial in New Hampshire did not meet the threshold of shocking the conscience or being unjust or oppressive under s. 44(1) of the Extradition Act, and that comity and international cooperation strongly favored surrender.

A Canadian citizen imprisoned in the United States challenged provisions of the International Transfer of Offenders Act that allow the Minister to refuse transfer requests.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the statutory scheme, with the majority finding no breach of s. 6(1) mobility rights because there is no constitutional right to serve a foreign sentence in Canada.

Concurring reasons found a s. 6(1) limitation but held it justified under s. 1 based on security and public safety objectives.

The Court emphasized that ministerial discretion in transfer decisions must still be exercised reasonably and with due regard to Charter values.

The appellant did not pursue the reasonableness challenge to the specific refusal decision before the Court.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after intervening in a street altercation that ended in the victim's death.

At trial, the judge refused three requests to put the defence of provocation to the jury.

The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge erred, finding that a careful reading of the accused's testimony, in light of the evidence as a whole, sufficiently supported the inferences necessary for the defence of provocation to apply.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The dissent would have upheld the conviction, finding that neither the objective nor subjective elements of provocation met the air of reality test.