Elaine Krivel

The Attorney General of Canada sought the extradition of the respondent to the USA for attempted break and enter.

The respondent was previously found unfit to stand trial due to tertiary syphilis causing dementia.

The court held an inquiry under s. 672.851(4) of the Criminal Code to determine whether a stay of proceedings should be ordered.

The court accepted the defence expert's opinion that the respondent was permanently unfit, did not pose a significant threat to public safety, and that a stay was in the interests of the proper administration of justice.

The extradition proceedings were stayed.

The applicants, sought for extradition, applied for disclosure of U.S. customs and Canadian police notes, Information to Obtain (ITOs) for search warrants and production orders, and communications between prosecutors.

They alleged breaches of Charter rights (ss. 8 and 9) due to warrantless searches and non-compliance with seizure reporting, and abuse of process (s. 7) regarding the timing of Canadian charge withdrawals.

The court found an air of reality to the s. 8 claims regarding the initial warrantless border search of electronic devices and the failure to comply with s. 489.1 of the Criminal Code, ordering disclosure of the notes and ITOs.

However, the s. 9 argument regarding arrest and the s. 7 abuse of process claim lacked an air of reality, and disclosure of prosecutorial communications was denied.

The United States sought the extradition of Jianghong Wang for prosecution of sexual assault.

The respondent conceded identification and the sufficiency of evidence for the Canadian equivalent offence but argued the identification evidence was unreliable and insufficient for committal.

The court, applying the limited screening function of an extradition judge, found that the identification evidence, including multiple complainants identifying the respondent from news reports and consistent assault patterns, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case for committal.

The application for extradition was granted.

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 an extradition committal proceeding, the requesting state sought surrender on allegations equivalent in Canada to internet child luring and invitation to sexual touching.

The court applied the limited sufficiency analysis under the Extradition Act and held that the certified record, including hearsay and circumstantial evidence, could support findings that the respondent knew the complainant was under 16, engaged in intentional online communications for a sexual purpose, and was the person sought.

Challenges based on dating ambiguities, alleged unreliability of the complainant, and competing inferences were rejected as matters for the trial court rather than the extradition judge.

Committal for extradition was ordered.

Two accused were charged with sexual assault, administering a stupefying or noxious substance to facilitate sexual assault, and being parties to each other’s alleged sexual assault.

The complainant reported memory loss and later flashbacks alleging anal sexual assaults after a night of drinking and attending the accused’s condominium.

The court found significant reliability issues with the complainant’s evidence, including inconsistent recollections, delayed “flashback” memories, and refusal to acknowledge possible memory error.

Forensic and circumstantial evidence did not establish the administration of a drug or non-consensual sexual activity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court concluded the Crown failed to prove lack of consent or the involvement of both accused in the alleged assaults.

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 applicant, wanted in the United States for murder, sought a disclosure order against the Attorney General of Canada for information regarding the United States' involvement in his prior prosecution and conviction for the same murder in Jordan.

The applicant hoped to use this information to argue double jeopardy, abuse of process, and a violation of s. 7 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the application, holding that it was premature and that the extradition judge lacked jurisdiction to order disclosure from foreign authorities.

The court noted that double jeopardy issues and related disclosure requests are properly within the purview of the Minister of Justice during the surrender phase of the extradition process.

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.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a settlement agreement with Mark Edward Valentine, former chair of Thompson Kernaghan & Co. Valentine pleaded guilty to securities fraud in the US and admitted to creating a culture of conflict of interest and noncompliance in Ontario.

The Commission found the settlement, which included a permanent director/officer ban, a 15-year cease-trade order, termination of registration, and a $100,000 costs payment, to be in the public interest.

The appellant appealed from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissing his appeal from an extradition judge's order committing him for surrender and dismissing his application for judicial review of the Minister of Justice's decision ordering his surrender.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons of the court below, finding that the surrender did not infringe the appellant's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.