Jacqueline Palumbo

The applicant sought an order for the committal of the respondent into custody to await the Minister's decision on extradition to the United Kingdom.

The respondent had been convicted in the UK of conspiracy to evade duty on imported tobacco products and of absconding during his trial.

The court found that the conduct underlying the UK convictions corresponded to Canadian offences, specifically evading duty under the Excise Act, and that the evidence provided by the UK was sufficient to justify committal for trial had the conduct occurred in Canada.

A warrant for committal was issued.

Application under s. 29 of the Extradition Act seeking committal of the respondent for surrender to the United States to face prosecution for conspiracy to traffic marijuana.

The court considered whether the record of the case established a prima facie case and whether the respondent was the person sought.

The evidence consisted primarily of a certified record including information from a cooperating witness involved in the trafficking organization and corroborating investigative details.

The court found the informant evidence sufficiently reliable at the committal stage and concluded there was evidence upon which a properly instructed trier of fact could convict.

The court also found on a balance of probabilities that the respondent was the individual identified in the record.

Committal for extradition was ordered pending the Minister’s surrender decision.

The accused applied for judicial interim release pending an extradition hearing to the United States on charges of conspiracy to traffic marijuana.

The Crown opposed release, citing the reverse onus under section 515(6)(d) of the Criminal Code and the accused's history of failing to comply with court orders.

The court found that the accused's proposed release plan, which relied heavily on electronic monitoring, was insufficient to mitigate the significant flight risk and the risk of continuing criminal activity.

The application for judicial interim release was dismissed and the accused was ordered detained.

The appellant appealed his committal for extradition and sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order to the United States on charges relating to a massive telemarketing fraud scheme.

He argued the extradition judge lacked jurisdiction because a photocopy of the Authority to Proceed was filed, that the evidence was insufficient for fraud over $5,000, and that the surrender order improperly included a conspiracy charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and application, finding that the Extradition Act does not require an original Authority to Proceed, the evidence of the $7 million fraud scheme was sufficient for committal, and the double criminality principle does not require matching the foreign offence to the Canadian corresponding offence.

The appellant, an African-American man who fled to Canada in 1969 after being charged with the attempted murder of a Chicago police officer, appealed his committal for extradition and sought judicial review of the Minister's surrender order.

He argued that the extradition judge failed to properly assess the reliability of inconsistent witness statements and that his surrender would be unjust and oppressive due to systemic racism in the Chicago justice system.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the application for judicial review, finding that the evidence met the threshold for reliability and sufficiency, and that the Minister reasonably concluded the appellant would not face persecution or be denied a fair trial if returned to the United States.