D. McCombs

The appellants appealed their committal for extradition to the United States on drug trafficking charges and sought judicial review of the Minister's surrender order.

They challenged the constitutionality of sections 32 and 33 of the Extradition Act, which allow the requesting state to rely on an unsworn record of the case.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the constitutional challenge, finding it was bound by its previous decision in Yang.

The Court also upheld the Minister's decision to surrender the appellants, rejecting arguments that the prosecution should occur in Canada, that the potential for life imprisonment violated fundamental justice, and that the Minister should have sought assurances for pre-trial custody credit.

The appellant, a Canadian citizen, was committed for extradition to the United States on charges of securities fraud and money laundering.

He appealed the committal order and sought judicial review of the Minister's surrender order, arguing that the relaxed evidentiary standards in sections 32 and 33 of the Extradition Act violated his rights under sections 6 and 7 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and application, holding that the evidentiary regime accords with the principles of fundamental justice and applies equally to Canadian citizens and non-citizens.

The appellant appealed his dangerous offender designation and indefinite sentence for sexual assault upon a child.

The sole issue was whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the long-term offender amendments to the Criminal Code, which came into force after the appellant's conviction but before his sentencing hearing, did not operate retrospectively.

The Crown conceded that, based on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Johnson, the legislation applies retrospectively.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the dangerous offender designation, and ordered a new sentencing hearing.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application to quash his committal for trial on a charge of second-degree murder.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the application judge's conclusion that there was 'some evidence' before the preliminary inquiry judge, including evidence of motive, opportunity, and post-offence conduct, to justify the committal.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay charges against the respondents due to a 33-month delay, which breached their s. 11(b) Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that the delay was unacceptable and reflected a culture that failed to prioritize timely trial dates.