Elizabeth France

The accused appealed his perjury conviction, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge misapprehended evidence.

A majority of the Court dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons given by the majority in the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

A dissenting judge would have ordered a new trial for substantially the reasons of the dissent below.

The conviction was upheld.

This appeal addressed judicial review of surrender orders in extradition proceedings and the reasonableness standard under s. 44(1)(a) of the Extradition Act.

The Court held it was reasonable for the Minister to rely on diplomatic assurances and consular access commitments in concluding there was no substantial risk of torture or mistreatment contrary to s. 7 of the Charter.

The Court emphasized a contextual assessment of assurance reliability and rejected a requirement to eliminate all possible risk.

It further held the surrender decisions were not otherwise unjust or oppressive in light of the full circumstances, including treaty obligations and offence gravity.

The appeal was allowed and the surrender orders restored.