2 total
Committal for extradition ordered where video and co-conspirator evidence established a plausible case of retail fraud.
The United States sought the extradition of three respondents for their alleged participation in a scheme to defraud a major technology company's retail stores by manipulating point-of-sale devices.
One respondent consented to committal.
The remaining two respondents argued there was insufficient evidence of their identity and participation to justify committal.
Applying the test under section 29(1) of the Extradition Act and the standard from Ferras, the court found that a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could find both respondents guilty based on the certified record of the case, which included video surveillance, co-conspirator evidence, and loss prevention testimony.
Committal for surrender was ordered for all respondents.
Appeal from drug trafficking convictions dismissed; search warrant properly endorsed and supported by sufficient grounds.
The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine and marihuana for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.
He argued that the trial judge erred in finding sufficient grounds for the search warrant of his residence and that his section 8 Charter rights were violated because a Quebec search warrant was endorsed in Ontario without the proper record.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the endorsing justice had sufficient information to carry out her statutory duty and that there was ample evidence in the Information to Obtain to link the appellant's drug activities to his residence.
