Heather Graham

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, sought the committal of the respondent for extradition on charges corresponding to sexual assault and accessing child pornography.

The respondent conceded committal for sexual assault but argued that the child pornography charge did not meet the requirement of double criminality due to the 'private use exception' established in R. v. Sharpe.

The court held that the private use exception is a defence, which an extradition judge has no jurisdiction to consider at the committal stage.

The court further found that even if the exception could be considered, the evidence of the prior exploitative relationship would vitiate consent.

Committal for extradition was ordered on both charges.

The applicant, facing extradition to the United States on charges of money laundering, sought a review of a decision denying him judicial interim release.

He proposed a new release plan involving house arrest, GPS monitoring, and his brother and sister-in-law as sureties.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet his onus on both the primary and secondary grounds.

The court concluded he posed a significant flight risk given his lack of ties to Canada, history of using false documents, and the potential lengthy sentence in the US.

The court also found detention necessary on the secondary ground due to the risk of him continuing to operate a money laundering business while on bail.

The applicant, sought by the United States for money laundering and operating an un-licenced money transfer business, applied for bail pending extradition.

The applicant bore the onus under s. 515(6)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet his onus on both the primary and secondary grounds.

The court found the applicant posed a significant flight risk, had a history of using false documents, and proposed an inadequate release plan with unsuitable sureties and insufficient supervision to prevent reoffending.

The applicant, facing extradition to the U.S. on multi-million dollar fraud and conspiracy charges, sought a review of a previous decision denying him interim release.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on a significantly increased financial pledge from five sureties, pre-paid rent demonstrating community ties, and the proposed use of an ankle monitor.

Concluding that the flight risk was sufficiently mitigated, the court granted interim release on strict conditions, including house arrest and electronic monitoring.

The applicant, facing extradition to the United States for an $8.8 million fraud, applied for judicial interim release.

He was already on bail for domestic charges involving $200,000.

The court found that the proposed sureties and financial pledges were insufficient given the magnitude of the U.S. charges, the applicant's sale of his Canadian home, his ownership of property in Nigeria, and the nature of the charges which included identity theft and association with passport forgers.

The application was denied without prejudice to re-apply with stricter conditions and more substantial financial terms.

The applicant, facing extradition to Romania for a murder conviction, brought a disclosure application to obtain records from the Canadian and Romanian governments to support an abuse of process motion based on allegations of torture.

The court dismissed the application, applying the Larosa test and finding no 'air of reality' to the torture allegations due to significant inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence and his failure to disclose his conviction to Canadian immigration authorities.

The court also found the requested documents were largely irrelevant or amounted to a fishing expedition.

The applicant sought judicial interim release pending an extradition hearing to the United States on charges of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine.

The court applied the bail framework incorporated through the Extradition Act and Criminal Code provisions, noting the reverse onus applicable to drug trafficking allegations and non‑resident status.

The court found the applicant failed to establish that detention was not justified on the primary ground due to a significant flight risk, including use of aliases, prior deportations, illegal re‑entries into Canada and the United States, and untrustworthy evidence regarding residence.

Although the court found no substantial risk to public safety given the absence of a criminal record, it concluded detention was also necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice given the seriousness of the allegations and strength of the evidence.

Bail pending extradition was therefore denied.