Edward Greenspan

The applicant applied for bail pending his appeal of an order committing him for extradition to the United States on charges relating to child pornography and child luring.

The court found that the applicant was not a flight risk and that the public interest alone did not justify his continued detention.

However, the application for bail was dismissed because the applicant failed to raise an arguable ground of appeal from his committal order.

The court found the evidence was sufficient for committal and that subscriber information obtained without a warrant would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant appealed his committal for extradition to Germany and applied for judicial review of the Minister of Justice's decision to surrender him.

Germany sought the appellant's extradition on charges of tax evasion, fraud, forgery, and bribery related to secret commissions earned from international arms and aircraft sales.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence to justify committal and holding that the double criminality rule was satisfied for the tax offences.

The Court also dismissed the application for judicial review, concluding that the Minister did not err in interpreting the extradition treaty, assessing the evidence, or finding that surrender would not be unjust or oppressive.

The receiver of Ravelston Corporation Limited obtained an order allowing it to attorn to the jurisdiction of a U.S. federal court and plead not guilty to criminal charges on behalf of the corporation.

A shareholder and creditor appealed the order, arguing it involved future rights under s. 193(a) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, or alternatively sought leave to appeal under s. 193(e).

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding the order did not involve future rights but merely directed how present rights should be exercised.

The court also refused leave to appeal, concluding the proposed appeal lacked prima facie merit as the supervising judge made no error in principle in exercising his discretion.

The plaintiff was arrested for extradition to Germany and subsequently brought a civil action against Canada and Germany for damages for negligence and abuse of power.

The Crown successfully moved for a stay of the civil action pending the outcome of the extradition proceedings.

The plaintiff appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motions judge erred in principle by failing to apply the high threshold test requiring extraordinary or exceptional circumstances to justify a stay of civil proceedings when concurrent criminal proceedings are pending.