Grant Purves

The United States of America sought the extradition of an individual for prosecution on fraud-related charges.

The individual applied for a stay of the extradition proceedings, arguing that the extradition was a ruse to obtain his testimony as a material witness in other cases, and that U.S. police had coerced him and reneged on promises of protection, endangering his life.

The court dismissed the stay application, finding no factual basis for the "ruse" argument and noting that alleged abuses did not have a nexus to the fairness of the extradition process itself.

The court also held that alternative remedies were available to address safety concerns.

The court then found that the test for committal for extradition was met, satisfying the dual criminality and prima facie case requirements, and issued the committal order.

The Crown appealed directed verdicts of acquittal and a stay of proceedings in a multi-accused robbery trial, arguing the trial judge erred in excluding similar act evidence and granting a stay for lost evidence.

The respondents cross-appealed their convictions.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in excluding similar act evidence due to insufficient reasons and in granting a stay without assessing prejudice.

The Crown's appeal was granted, setting aside the acquittals and stay, and ordering a new trial on those counts.

The respondents' cross-appeals against conviction were dismissed as the similar act rulings had benefited them or were consented to, and other grounds lacked merit.

The defendant, R.P., was charged with sexual interference in relation to C.H., his wife's daughter, then aged ten.

The judge-alone trial focused on the credibility of C.H.'s testimony regarding an attempted sexual assault.

The court assessed C.H.'s credibility as a young witness, applying Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on child evidence and victim reactions.

The mother's testimony, which sought to discredit C.H., was found not credible due to her motives and inconsistencies.

The court found C.H. to be a credible and reliable witness, noting her candidness and lack of embellishment.

R.P. was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.