Kandia Ayanna Aird

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Adeyanju Olaniyan’s application for bail pending appeal of his committal for extradition to the United States on fraud charges.

The court reviewed the statutory test for bail pending appeal in the extradition context, emphasizing the low threshold for the merits of the appeal but the heightened concern for flight risk due to Canada’s international obligations.

The court found that Mr. Olaniyan had not established he was not a flight risk, given his prior breach of bail conditions and the inadequacy of his proposed release plan.

The application was dismissed and the appeal was ordered expedited.

The decision concerns the extradition of Adeyanju Olaniyan, Rachel O’Connor, and Timothy Balogun to the United States to face prosecution for an alleged fraud scheme involving the use of spoofed calls to obtain and resell medical supplies.

The court reviews the evidence, including voice identification, financial records, and circumstantial evidence, and finds that the evidence is sufficient to justify committal for extradition under the Extradition Act.

The court addresses the reliability of voice identification evidence and the legal standards for committal, ultimately granting the extradition applications.

In an extradition proceeding, the applicants (Balogun and O'Connor) brought a motion for disclosure of materials related to voice identification and information from co-operating witnesses.

The court dismissed the request for disclosure of items obtained or generated by US investigators (including most voice identification materials, and information from Individual 1 and Josue Rivera) due to a lack of jurisdiction, affirming that domestic disclosure obligations do not extend to foreign jurisdictions unless an abuse of process is alleged.

However, the court granted the request for disclosure of two Canadian bank audio recordings used as baseline comparators for voice identification, finding that the applicants met the "air of reality" test for manifest unreliability of the voice identification evidence, particularly concerning opinions about "distinct Canadian" and "distinct Nigerian" accents.

The court emphasized the importance of ensuring a fair extradition hearing based on admissible and reliable evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order, attempting to adduce fresh medical evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer test for admissibility as it would not have affected the Minister's assessment of the applicant's medical situation or the surrender decision.

Consequently, the application for judicial review was also dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial interim release pending an extradition hearing to the Czech Republic for in-absentia convictions of break and enter and theft.

The Attorney General opposed release on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

The court found the applicant to be ordinarily resident in Canada, placing the onus on the Attorney General.

The court determined that the proposed release plan, including 24/7 surety supervision and house arrest, adequately mitigated flight risk and public safety concerns, and maintained confidence in the administration of justice, despite the seriousness of the underlying offences and the strong case for committal.

The application for judicial interim release was granted.

The accused, Brodie Young, was charged with possession of crystal methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

He sought to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his s. 8 rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

Police conducted a warrantless search of his Airbnb rental, discovering drugs.

The court found that the police exceeded their common-law powers, and the "plain view" doctrine did not apply as the discovery was not inadvertent and involved an exploratory search.

The Charter violation was deemed serious, with a significant impact on the accused's privacy interests in his residence.

Consequently, the evidence was excluded, leading to an acquittal.

The accused, Yaas Abdillahi, was charged with possession of controlled substances for trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

During his arrest, police officers used excessive force, striking him on the head with loaded firearms, which was found to be a violation of his s. 7 Charter rights.

The accused sought a stay of proceedings or, alternatively, exclusion of evidence under s. 24(1) and s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found that while some force was justified, striking the accused with loaded firearms was unreasonable.

However, the court denied a stay of proceedings, finding the police conduct, though serious, not egregious enough for such a drastic remedy.

The court also denied the exclusion of evidence, balancing the moderate seriousness of the breach and its impact against society's interest in an adjudication on the merits, noting no causal connection between the breach and the evidence.

The accused was found guilty on the trafficking charge and not guilty on the proceeds of crime charge due to lack of evidence.

The Charter breach's impact on sentencing was reserved for a later hearing.

The applicant, Shawn Tedder, faced charges of trafficking and possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

He brought several pre-trial motions, including an application for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter, an application to quash indictment counts under s. 601(1) of the Criminal Code alleging unconstitutionality of s. 5 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), various constitutional challenges to the medical marihuana regulatory schemes (MMAR, MMPR, ACMPR) and CDSA ss. 4, 5, and 6, and an application under s. 8 of the Charter for exclusion of evidence.

All of Tedder's applications were dismissed.

The court found no s. 11(b) violation, affirmed the validity of CDSA s. 5 offences despite regulatory changes, and rejected constitutional challenges due to an insufficient evidentiary record and established legal principles distinguishing medical users from commercial suppliers.

The accused was charged with two counts of possession of heroin and crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The accused initially pleaded not guilty to the trafficking charges but guilty to simple possession.

The Crown rejected the pleas and the trial proceeded.

The accused testified that the drugs were for personal use, funded by online poker winnings.

The court found the accused's evidence incredible due to numerous inconsistencies with statements made to an addiction medicine specialist and the mathematical impossibility of affording such quantities on welfare income alone.

The court concluded the accused was an "addict trafficker" who possessed the drugs to sell them to fund his own addiction.

Both charges were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was charged with production of marijuana, possession of marijuana over 3 kilograms for the purpose of trafficking, and theft of hydro under $5,000 following a police raid on a grow operation.

The defendant admitted possessing 14.9 kilograms of wet marijuana in his van but claimed it was refuse destined for disposal.

The court found the defendant not guilty of production and theft charges, but guilty of simple possession.

However, the defendant held a valid Health Canada authorization to possess up to 3,960 grams of dry marijuana for medical purposes.

Upon agreement of counsel regarding the dry weight conversion of the wet marijuana, the possession charge was dismissed as the quantity fell within the defendant's authorized limit.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a search warrant execution at a residential premise.

The Crown's case relied on two incriminatory statements allegedly made by the accused and circumstantial evidence.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the voluntariness of both statements.

The first statement was made in the basement during the warrant execution; the second was video-recorded at the police station approximately one hour later.

The court found both statements involuntary due to improper inducements offered by police regarding lenient treatment of the accused's pregnant wife in exchange for his confession.

With both statements excluded, the court assessed the sufficiency of the remaining circumstantial evidence and found it insufficient to support committal to trial.

The accused was discharged on both charges.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that a 26‑month delay from arrest to trial on a charge of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking violated his right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The delay included institutional delay in both the Ontario Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Justice, including a nine‑month adjournment due to the unavailability of a judge.

Applying the guidelines from R. v. Morin, the court found that although the delay warranted scrutiny and some prejudice could be inferred, the accused’s evidence of actual prejudice was limited and not significant.

The court also considered that the accused’s election for a jury trial and Charter applications increased scheduling complexity and contributed to the length of the delay.

Balancing the modest prejudice against the strong public interest in adjudicating serious drug trafficking charges on their merits, the court declined to grant a stay.

The accused applied under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude drugs discovered during a search following his arrest for possession of marijuana.

Police approached a vehicle after observing the accused leave an after‑hours club and arrested him after the passenger was found with marijuana.

The court held that the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused and that the arrest was based on speculation that he knew about the passenger’s marijuana.

The resulting search and detention violated ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter, and the court rejected the Crown’s argument that the interaction constituted a lawful investigative detention.

Applying the framework in Grant, the court concluded the police conduct demonstrated a deliberate disregard for Charter rights and excluded the seized drugs.