Jacques Letellier

The United States sought the extradition of the respondents for a plane hijacking allegedly committed in 1969.

At the time, hijacking was not a crime under Canadian law nor an extradition crime under the existing treaties, but it was later added to the Criminal Code and the 1976 extradition treaty.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the treaty applies to crimes committed before it came into force, a fugitive may only be extradited if the act was a crime recognized in Canada at the time it was committed.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought the extradition of the respondents for an aircraft hijacking alleged to have occurred in 1969.

The respondents returned to Canada in 1979, but the appellant did not request extradition until 1984.

The extradition judge granted a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, finding the delay violated the respondents' s. 7 rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that an extradition judge is not a court of competent jurisdiction under s. 24(1), the Charter does not apply to the actions of foreign governments, and the mere surrender of a fugitive pursuant to a treaty does not violate the principles of fundamental justice.

The appellant was granted day parole by the National Parole Board, conditional on his acceptance by a community residential centre.

Before his release, he committed disciplinary offences, leading the Board to delay and eventually annul his day parole.

The appellant applied for habeas corpus to challenge his continued detention.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that habeas corpus is only available to challenge the continuation of a deprivation of liberty if it becomes unlawful.

Because the appellant's parole was annulled before the prerequisite condition was fulfilled, he never acquired the status of a parolee, and his continued detention remained lawful.

The appellant, a federal inmate, was placed in a special handling unit after being charged with the murder of a fellow inmate.

Despite his subsequent acquittal, he remained in segregation and his request to transfer to a medium-security institution was denied.

He applied to the provincial superior court for a writ of habeas corpus.

The lower courts dismissed the application, holding that the Federal Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, ruling that provincial superior courts have jurisdiction to issue habeas corpus to determine the validity of a distinct form of confinement in a federal penitentiary, notwithstanding the Federal Court's concurrent certiorari jurisdiction.

The appellant was convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

He appealed on two grounds: first, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because he had not validly re-elected for a trial by judge alone under s. 492 of the Criminal Code; and second, that the trial judge failed to follow the mandatory two-phase procedure under s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appellant had validly waived the procedural requirements of s. 492 through his counsel.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on the second ground, finding that the trial judge's failure to make a finding on possession before requiring the accused to address the purpose of possession was a fatal error that could not be cured by s. 613(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

A new trial was ordered.