Heather J. Graham

The court summarily dismissed George Georgiou’s application to stay or terminate the execution of a U.S. Final Forfeiture Order (FFO) against funds held in Ontario, finding the application manifestly frivolous.

The court held that it had no jurisdiction to strike down U.S. orders, and that all appeals and challenges to the conviction and forfeiture order had been exhausted in both the U.S. and Canada.

The court also rejected allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and denied a request for further disclosure, finding no evidentiary basis for such claims.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, brought a motion for directions seeking to close case management hearings in an extradition case to the public and impose a publication ban.

The applicant argued that rules governing judicial pre-trial and case supervision conferences, which mandate confidentiality, should apply.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that as a case management judge, its role was akin to a trial judge exercising trial management powers, which are generally open to the public, and that the open court principle was not displaced.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's order to surrender him to the United States for trial on charges of sexual exploitation of children and interstate communication-extortion.

The applicant argued the surrender was unreasonable, unjust, oppressive, and violated his Charter rights under sections 7 and 6, and that the Minister unreasonably declined to seek assurances regarding potential civil commitment in the U.S. The Court of Appeal upheld the Minister's decision, finding it reasonable and entitled to substantial deference.

The Court concluded that the potential sentence disparity and civil commitment process in the U.S. did not render the surrender unjust, oppressive, or a violation of Charter rights, and that the Minister's decision to not seek assurances was also reasonable.

Tenzin Norbu appealed a committal order for extradition to the United States on immigration fraud charges and sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order.

The alleged scheme involved preparing and selling fraudulent documentation and false narratives to asylum seekers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal, finding sufficient identification evidence and evidence for the broader fraudulent scheme, and the application for judicial review, upholding the Minister's decision not to seek assurances regarding potential deportation to China.

Rudolf Karicka, a Czech citizen of Roma ancestry, sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order to the Czech Republic, where he faced a mandatory minimum two-year sentence for theft, violation of domestic freedom, and property damage, having been convicted in absentia.

He argued that surrender would shock the conscience or violate his s. 7 Charter rights due to alleged discrimination against Roma people, egregious delay, harshness of the sentence, and personal circumstances.

The Court of Appeal, applying a reasonableness standard, upheld the Minister's decision, finding no justification to refuse surrender as it was not contrary to the extradition treaty, unjust, oppressive, or a breach of Charter rights.

The court found the Minister reasonably addressed concerns regarding discrimination (noting improvements and lack of evidence of persecution), delay (attributable to the applicant's absconding), sentence severity (not shocking to Canadian conscience given Canadian equivalents), and personal circumstances (accommodations for health, balancing family interests with treaty obligations).

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 applicant, facing extradition to the U.S. for fraud and money laundering, sought disclosure of materials related to his provisional arrest warrant.

He alleged that the respondent (Crown) misled the issuing justice by misrepresenting his planned departure as an attempt to escape, despite his regular contact with CBSA.

The applicant argued this constituted an abuse of process, requiring a stay of proceedings.

The court applied the Larosa test for exceptional disclosure in extradition proceedings, finding that the allegations were capable of supporting the remedy, had an air of reality, and the sought documents were likely relevant.

The court granted the application for disclosure of various materials related to the provisional arrest warrant, including those from law enforcement, CBSA, Department of Justice, and the affiant's own investigation, subject to privilege and redaction.

The applicant, sought for extradition to the United States, applied for disclosure of records relating to his arrest by border services and an assault he suffered while in provincial custody.

He intended to use the disclosure to seek a stay of the extradition proceedings, alleging Charter violations by Canadian authorities.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the alleged misconduct lacked any nexus to the extradition committal process or the gathering of evidence by the requesting state.

The United States sought the extradition of Festus Akpobome (also known as Ejiro Efevwerha and Andrew Ejiro Efevwerha) to face fraud charges.

The primary issues were whether the requesting state established the identity of the respondent as the person sought and whether the requesting state's conduct amounted to an abuse of process.

The court found that the evidence, including witness identification, photographic comparison, and email analysis, sufficiently established identity on a balance of probabilities.

The court also dismissed the abuse of process argument, finding no "blatant unfairness" or serious misconduct by the requesting state.

Consequently, an order was issued committing the respondent to custody for extradition.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, applied for the committal of the respondent for extradition to face charges of making child pornography.

The charges were based on photographs discovered on the respondent's electronic devices, which were seized without a warrant by Canadian police while the respondent was staying as a guest in a friend's home.

The court found that the warrantless seizure of the devices violated the respondent's section 8 Charter rights, as he maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy in his personal electronic devices despite being a temporary guest.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter due to the seriousness of the breach and the failure of police to file a Report to a Justice as soon as practicable.

Without the excluded photographs, there was insufficient evidence to justify committal, and the respondent was discharged.

The person sought in an extradition proceeding, Ejiro Efevwerha (a.k.a.

Festus Akpobome), brought a second application for disclosure from Canadian authorities.

He sought information on how American law enforcement obtained his Ontario driver's license photo and accessed his email account, arguing potential s. 8 Charter violations and challenging the quality of identification evidence.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, opposed the application, asserting that an extradition hearing is not a criminal trial and the Revised Record of the Case no longer relied on Canadian-gathered evidence.

The court dismissed the application, finding no 'air of reality' to the Charter claims as the Charter does not apply to foreign law enforcement actions outside Canada, and the requesting state had removed Canadian-gathered evidence from its record.

The applicant sought a stay of extradition proceedings and a declaration that s. 4 of the Extradition Act was unconstitutional, arguing abuse of process and Charter s. 7 infringement due to a second extradition request after a prior discharge.

The court dismissed the application, finding that s. 4 of the Act explicitly permits further proceedings unless they constitute an abuse of process, and that the current proceedings, based on additional evidence, did not meet the high threshold for abuse of process or violate the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter.

This decision concerns a second extradition request by the United States for Mohamed Abdi Siyad, also known as "Hassan," for alleged human smuggling.

The respondent had been discharged in a previous extradition hearing because the judge was not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that he was the person sought.

In this second hearing, the court found sufficient prima facie evidence of conduct that would justify committal for trial in Canada under section 117(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Crucially, new fingerprint evidence, not available in the first hearing, satisfied the court on a balance of probabilities that the respondent was indeed the person sought by the requesting state.

The court ordered the respondent's committal into custody to await surrender.

The person sought for extradition to the United States applied for further disclosure, including the cross-examination of police officers and communications between Canadian and US officials.

He alleged that evidence was obtained in violation of his Charter rights during a warrantless search of his electronic devices and subsequent sharing of information with US authorities.

The court dismissed the disclosure request, finding that while there was an air of reality to the Charter claims, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the requested testimony and documents would likely be relevant to determining the legality of the search and seizure.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, sought summary dismissal of Gregory Hibbert's application to resist extradition for child pornography charges.

Hibbert argued that evidence was obtained in violation of his Charter rights and sought various remedies, including exclusion of evidence and striking out his prior Canadian guilty plea.

The court dismissed Hibbert's claims related to his Canadian guilty plea and the informal sharing of evidence, finding them outside the extradition judge's jurisdiction or without legal basis.

However, the court found an "air of reality" to Hibbert's claim that evidence used in the extradition request was obtained in Canada in violation of his Charter rights, and allowed that specific aspect of his application to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant, Givan Iusein, sought to stay extradition proceedings to Romania, where he was convicted of murder and sentenced to 18 years imprisonment, from which he fled.

He argued abuse of process based on alleged police violence, torture, sexual assault, an unfair trial, delay in the extradition process, and deliberate attempts by Romanian authorities to mislead Canadian authorities.

The court found that while there was likely some limited police violence immediately after his arrest, the claims of extensive torture, sexual abuse, and unfair trial were largely fabricated and uncorroborated by medical evidence.

The court also found that the applicant's exculpatory statements were not coercively obtained and that he had legal representation and the opportunity to testify at his trial.

The delays in the extradition process were largely attributable to the applicant.

The court dismissed the application to stay, concluding that the high threshold for abuse of process was not met and that alternative remedies were available through the Minister of Justice or civil action.

The applicant was committed for extradition.

The appellant appealed his committal for extradition to the United States and sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order.

The appellant was committed on charges of fraud and possession of property obtained by crime related to his management of a pharmaceutical business that sold drugs to U.S. doctors and clinics without complying with American regulatory requirements.

The Minister surrendered the appellant on charges of conspiracy and unlicensed distribution of prescription drugs rather than fraud.

The appellant challenged the process as unfair, arguing he lacked opportunity to respond to conspiracy allegations and that there was insufficient evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the committal judge lacked jurisdiction to compel disclosure of anonymous witness identities, the evidence supported the possession charge satisfying double criminality requirements, and the Minister had broad discretion under the Extradition Act to describe the offence as the Minister saw fit.

An application for judicial review from a surrender order of the Minister of Justice dated February 17, 2017 was dismissed on consent as abandoned.

The applicant sought review of a detention order denying judicial interim release pending extradition proceedings to the United States for unauthorized use of a computer.

The applicant argued the application judge erred in principle and that material changes in circumstances warranted variation of the order.

The Court of Appeal found no reviewable errors in the application judge's analysis of flight risk, public protection, and public confidence grounds.

The court rejected the argument that fresh evidence regarding the charges constituted a material change in circumstances.

The application was dismissed, with the court emphasizing the serious nature of cybercrime and the applicant's significant flight risk.

Karim Baratov sought judicial interim release pending his extradition hearing to the United States for serious computer hacking offences, including conspiracy with Russian FSB officers to steal information from webmail providers.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the U.S., opposed the application on all three grounds under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code: flight risk, risk of re-offending, and maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice.

The court found that Baratov, a sophisticated hacker with significant financial resources and international connections, posed a substantial flight risk and a high likelihood of re-offending.

The proposed release plan, including electronic monitoring and parental supervision, was deemed insufficient given his skills and past conduct.

The court also concluded that releasing him would undermine public confidence in the justice system due to the gravity of the offences and the strong evidence against him.

The application for judicial interim release was denied.