Joseph L. Bloomenfeld

In an extradition committal hearing, the moving party sought an order committing the responding party for extradition to face drug conspiracy prosecution in the United States.

The court held that the responding party's affidavit evidence was inadmissible because it largely advanced defence evidence and did not establish manifest unreliability in the requesting state's record.

Applying the Extradition Act committal test, the court found sufficient evidence on each essential element of the corresponding Canadian offence and found identity established on a balance of probabilities.

The court rejected challenges to identification reliability as matters for trial and ordered committal for extradition.

The appellant appealed his convictions for three bank robberies, arguing the trial judge erred in relying on contaminated eyewitness identification evidence and improperly admitting out-of-court statements for the truth of their contents.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the trial judge failed to consider the impact of flawed police photo line-up procedures and improperly accepted a witness's out-of-court statement without applying the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The Court declined to apply the curative proviso, allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial.

The accused was charged with first degree murder.

At the preliminary inquiry, the Crown presented circumstantial evidence, while the accused called witnesses providing arguably exculpatory evidence.

The preliminary inquiry judge committed the accused to trial for second degree murder, refusing to weigh the evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the accused's appeal, holding that while a preliminary inquiry judge must engage in a limited weighing of the whole evidence when the Crown relies on circumstantial evidence, the judge in this case properly considered the evidence as a whole and did not err in committing the accused to trial.

The appellant appealed convictions and sentence arising from trafficking in large amounts of cocaine.

He argued primarily that the judge hearing the Garofoli application unfairly limited cross-examination of the police officer who swore the affidavits supporting wiretap authorizations.

The court held that leave to cross-examine on such affidavits is not automatic, informer privilege remained protected absent the innocence-at-stake exception, and the application judge properly exercised his discretion in restricting questions that risked revealing protected information.

The court also rejected a sentence disparity argument, finding the appellant played a more significant role than others in the trafficking operation.

Both conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of an application for certiorari seeking to quash a committal for trial on a charge of second degree murder.

The court held that the committing judge correctly instructed himself on the limited function of a preliminary inquiry judge under governing Supreme Court authorities.

Relying on authorities confirming that a preliminary inquiry judge is not to assess witness credibility, the court found no jurisdictional error.

The appeal was dismissed.