Faiyaz Amir Alibhai

The appellant appealed his nine-year sentence, arguing it should be reduced to six years based on parity with his co-accused, whose sentence was reduced by the Court of Appeal in a previous decision.

The Court agreed that parity was central to the original joint submission.

While the appellant shared some mitigating factors with the co-accused, such as rehabilitation and cooperation with authorities, other factors did not apply.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the sentence was reduced from nine to eight years.

The Court of Appeal issued supplementary reasons to allocate a previously imposed total sentence of six years among the appellant's various convictions.

The court allocated three years for trafficking in Oxycodone, five years concurrent for trafficking in Fentanyl, and one year consecutive for forgery charges, resulting in a net sentence of seven and a half months on the forgery charges after pre-sentence custody credit.

The appellant appealed her convictions and nine-year sentence for drug trafficking and forgery arising from a prescription fraud scheme.

The Crown conceded she should be acquitted of two trafficking counts, and the court stayed two forgery counts under the Kienapple principle.

On the sentence appeal, the court found the jointly submitted nine-year sentence manifestly unfit despite the seriousness of the offence, citing the appellant's youth, lack of record, cooperation with police, and the fact that a more culpable co-accused received the same sentence.

The sentence was reduced to six years.

The United States sought the appellant's extradition for arson, fraud, and firearm offences.

At the committal hearing, the appellant sought to introduce evidence challenging the credibility of two accomplices whose anticipated evidence was summarized in the record of the case.

The extradition judge refused to admit the evidence and committed the appellant for surrender.

The Minister of Justice subsequently ordered the appellant's surrender.

The appellant appealed the committal order and applied for judicial review of the surrender order, arguing that the potential sentence in the United States was grossly disproportionate to a comparable Canadian sentence, violating s. 7 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the application, finding that the proffered evidence would not have rendered the record of the case manifestly unreliable, and that the potential sentence disparity would not shock the conscience.

The applicant, sought for extradition to the United States on drug trafficking charges, applied for further disclosure of communications between Canadian and American authorities regarding efforts to locate her.

She argued that the requesting state lied about its efforts to find her and that the seven-year pre-extradition delay constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the application, finding no air of reality to the claims of prejudice from delay or deliberate deception by the requesting state that would justify ordering disclosure at the committal stage.

The appellant challenged an extradition committal order and sought judicial review of the minister's surrender order, alleging that CBSA officials breached statutory and Charter protections during the related immigration process.

The court held that the extradition judge applied the proper abuse of process analysis, including the residual category framework for a stay as a remedy of last resort, and was entitled to consider the impact of the impugned conduct on the fairness of the immigration process as part of the broader administration of justice analysis.

The court rejected arguments that bad faith was confined to deliberate misconduct and found no palpable and overriding error in the extradition judge's factual findings concerning inadmissibility, detention, the redacted s. 44(1) report, and the alleged effort to facilitate extradition through immigration mechanisms.

The application for judicial review and the motion to admit fresh evidence were also dismissed.

In an extradition proceeding, the person sought applied for disclosure of communications between Canadian and United States authorities relating to his return to the United States.

The applicant alleged that earlier deportation proceedings in Canada were in fact a disguised extradition process amounting to an abuse of process under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Applying the test from R. v. Larosa, the court considered whether the allegation had an air of reality and whether the requested materials were likely relevant.

The close timing between the issuance of a U.S. criminal complaint and a Canadian immigration arrest warrant raised a realistic possibility of cross-border communications.

The court held that the allegation was not a fishing expedition and ordered disclosure.

The United States of America sought the extradition of the respondent for the offence of child luring.

The perpetrator communicated with a 17-year-old female online and coerced her into engaging in sexual activity with her 13-year-old sister over a Skype video call.

The communications were traced to an IP address assigned to the respondent at the relevant time.

The court found that the IP subscriber information provided a sufficient foundation for a reliable inference that the respondent was the perpetrator, satisfying the test for committal under the Extradition Act.

The application for committal was granted.