Kandia Ayanna Aird

In an extradition proceeding, the court reviewed the unredacted Information to Obtain (ITO) and redacted audio/visual recordings to determine if the redactions were justified.

The court found that the redactions fell within the ambit of public interest privilege, as they were necessary to protect an ongoing police investigation and public safety.

The court ruled that the Attorney General of Canada had satisfied its disclosure obligations and ordered the unredacted ITO to be held under seal.

In an extradition proceeding concerning a drug trafficking conspiracy, both the Attorney General of Canada and the respondents brought applications regarding the disclosure of materials related to a confidential witness.

The respondents sought the identity of the witness, unredacted copies of the Information to Obtain (ITO), and audio/video recordings of a meeting.

The Attorney General sought to vary a previous order requiring production of the recordings, citing the witness's consent and public interest privilege.

The court denied the request for the witness's identity due to safety concerns but ordered the Attorney General to submit the edited recordings and an unredacted ITO with a judicial summary to the court for review.

The applicant, sought for extradition to the United States on a charge of murder for hire, applied for an order for additional disclosure relating to the examination of his seized iPhone by Canadian police.

The applicant argued that the Second Revised Record of the Case (SRROC) lacked sufficient information to determine whether the search warrant was validly issued and executed in compliance with the Charter.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for additional disclosure in extradition proceedings, as the SRROC contained sufficient information to plausibly infer that the evidence was obtained lawfully and the applicant's request amounted to a fishing expedition.

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 Attorney General of Canada applied for an arrest warrant, specifically a Feeney warrant, under the Extradition Act for a person sought in the United States for fraud.

The court noted that under section 16 of the Extradition Act and section 507(4) of the Criminal Code, the applicant must make out a case for a warrant as opposed to a summons.

Finding no evidence to suggest an arrest warrant was required for the Canadian citizen living in her own home, the court dismissed the application without prejudice.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and breach of probation after police executed a search warrant at her apartment.

Police found 5.29 grams of cocaine on her person, 17.68 grams in a safe in her bedroom, and over $2,000 in cash.

The accused claimed the drugs on her person were for personal use and that she was unaware of the drugs in the safe, which she alleged belonged to a friend.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as implausible, finding that the quantity of drugs, cash, and digital scales were consistent with trafficking.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

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 Crown brought an application for directions regarding the procedure to review documents seized from the respondent's residence over which solicitor-client privilege was asserted.

The Crown proposed providing the respondent with a copy of the USB key containing the documents so she could identify privileged materials, while the defence argued for a third-party referee.

The court accepted the Crown's proposal, finding it sensible and protective of the respondent's rights as the privilege holder, and ordered the respondent to review the documents within 60 days.

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 applicant, charged with drug trafficking offences, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total time from arrest to the scheduled trial was approximately 31 months.

The court analyzed the timeline, categorizing periods of inherent, institutional, and neutral delay across both the Ontario Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Justice.

Finding a total institutional delay of 22.25 months, the court balanced the prejudice to the applicant against society's interest in a trial on the merits.

The application was dismissed, as the delay was deemed reasonable in the circumstances.

The accused brought a Garofoli application challenging the validity of a telewarrant used to search his residence for controlled substances.

The defence sought disclosure relating to a confidential informant, cross‑examination of the affiant, and exclusion of evidence seized during the search.

The court reviewed both redacted and unredacted versions of the Information to Obtain and considered whether the informant’s information was credible, compelling, and corroborated.

Although the court found the informant’s credibility to be poor and criticized the incomplete disclosure of the informant’s criminal record in the ITO, the information was sufficiently detailed and corroborated by police investigation to establish reasonable grounds.

The court concluded that the telewarrant was properly issued and the seized evidence was admissible.

The accused was charged with possession of heroin and possession for the purpose of trafficking after police stopped his vehicle for a traffic infraction and discovered heroin in the car.

The defence argued that police orchestrated the traffic stop and planted heroin on the vehicle’s console to justify a warrantless search.

The court conducted a blended voir dire addressing the admissibility of the seized drugs under s. 8 of the Charter.

After identifying serious credibility issues and collusion in police testimony, the court concluded that the heroin visible on the console was planted to create a pretext for the search.

The search was found to violate the accused’s Charter rights and the drug evidence was excluded under s. 24(2).

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.