Elaine Krivel Q.C.

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.

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.

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.