Thomas Beveridge

The United States sought the extradition of the appellant for attempted murder and other offences.

The appellant appealed the committal order, arguing that the evidentiary provisions of the Extradition Act (ss. 32, 33, 34) violate section 7 of the Charter by allowing the admission of unreliable, unsworn evidence, such as hearsay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the principles of fundamental justice in the extradition context must respect the differences in foreign legal systems.

The court found that the impugned provisions do not violate the Charter and that the extradition judge is not required to assess the reliability of the evidence tendered by the requesting state.

The requesting state appealed an order discharging fugitives at an extradition hearing on heroin conspiracy charges.

The Court of Appeal held that the extradition judge misapplied s. 18(1)(b) of the Extradition Act by focusing on proof of the foreign offences and territorial situs rather than asking whether the conduct underlying the foreign charges, wherever it occurred, would if committed in Canada establish a prima facie case of any Canadian extradition offence.

Applying the proper conduct-based double criminality analysis, the court found sufficient evidence of conspiracy to traffic in heroin and trafficking in heroin to justify committal.

The fugitives' separate application alleging a 25-month appellate delay under s. 7 of the Charter was dismissed because they took no steps to expedite the appeal and showed no real prejudice affecting fairness.

The accused arrived at Pearson International Airport and was suspected by customs officers of having ingested narcotics.

He was detained in a 'drug loo facility' until he passed 84 pellets of heroin.

He was convicted at trial, but the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, finding violations of his Charter rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the detention and 'bedpan vigil' were authorized by s. 98 of the Customs Act and did not violate the accused's rights under s. 7 or s. 8 of the Charter.

The complainant union alleged that the respondents, Chinook Chemicals Company and G. Lemaire, violated the Labour Relations Act by depriving a truck driver of employment because of his union support.

Lemaire, an owner-operator who leased his truck to Chinook, took over driving his truck full-time from the complainant's member shortly before a union ratification vote.

The Board found that Chinook did not violate the Act as it merely acquiesced to Lemaire's lawful exercise of his right to drive his own truck.

The Board further held that even if Lemaire's statements to the driver constituted intimidation under section 70, the requested remedy of reinstatement was inappropriate because Lemaire had a lawful right to resume driving his truck.

The complaint was dismissed.