Elaine Krivel

An extradition judge considered whether the statutory test for committal under s. 29(1)(a) of the Extradition Act was met for a person sought by the United States on drug conspiracy charges.

The requesting state relied on certified Records of the Case and supplementary records containing wiretap interceptions, evidence of large drug seizures in the United States, and a search of the respondent’s residence revealing significant cash proceeds.

The court applied the double criminality principle and the prima facie standard applicable at extradition hearings.

Finding sufficient admissible evidence that could justify committal for trial in Canada for conspiracy to traffic in Schedule I and II substances under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and being satisfied as to identity, the court ordered committal to await surrender.

The applicant sought judicial interim release pending an extradition committal hearing relating to fraud charges brought by the United States.

The court reviewed the governing framework under the Extradition Act and the modified application of the Criminal Code bail provisions, emphasizing that flight risk must be assessed with heightened caution in extradition proceedings.

The applicant proposed a substantial surety plan totaling approximately $770,000 and supervision by family members and community members.

The court found that although the secondary ground was addressed and the tertiary ground was not engaged, the primary ground remained a serious concern due to the strength of the extradition case, the potential for lengthy imprisonment in the requesting state, the applicant’s prior fraud conviction in the United States, and his use of aliases.

Given the heightened risk of non‑appearance and the limitations of proposed supervision and electronic monitoring, the court ordered continued detention pending the extradition hearing.

In the context of a mutual legal assistance proceeding under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, individuals sought Charter remedies against both the provincial and federal Crowns following withdrawn criminal charges and a discontinued extradition process.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to be removed as a party and to strike portions of the requested relief.

The court held that the federal Crown was not a party to the sending order application because the Attorney General of Ontario was the “competent authority” responsible for the process under the Act.

The court further found that the requested Charter remedies relating to extradition proceedings could not be pursued in the absence of an active proceeding under the Extradition Act and would improperly interfere with executive and prosecutorial functions.

The motion was granted and the impugned relief was struck.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of Japan, applied to commit the respondent for extradition to face a charge of using a forged passport.

The respondent cross-applied for a stay of proceedings, arguing the extradition was an abuse of process because Japan's true motive was to interrogate him about an unsolved 1995 triple murder.

The respondent also sought to exclude evidence obtained from an accomplice who was on death row in China.

The court dismissed the cross-applications, finding that Japan's dual investigative and prosecutorial purposes did not constitute an abuse of process, and that the accomplice evidence was neither manifestly unreliable nor gathered abusively.

Finding sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case and the respondent's identity, the court ordered the respondent committed for extradition.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the Republic of Korea, sought an order for the committal for extradition of the respondent for offences corresponding to conspiracy to commit fraud and fraud.

The respondent allegedly defrauded the Korean government of approximately $12 million CAD by illegally obtaining compensation for redeemed land.

The respondent argued the Record of the Case was manifestly unreliable due to translation errors and inconsistencies.

The court found sufficient available and reliable evidence on every essential element of the offences to justify committal and ordered the respondent's committal for extradition.