The United States sought the appellant's extradition for his alleged involvement in a telemarketing fraud.
At the extradition hearing, the appellant sought to call a co-conspirator as a witness to challenge the reliability of the co-conspirator's sworn statement and grand jury testimony, which were included in the Record of the Case.
The extradition judge refused to allow the witness to be called because the appellant could not demonstrate the potential relevance of the anticipated evidence to the committal determination.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that an extradition judge may require a party to outline the anticipated evidence and demonstrate its relevance to the limited weighing of evidence permitted under the Extradition Act before allowing a witness to be called.
