Marie-Hélène Giroux

The appellants, recognized as Convention refugees in Canada due to persecution in Hungary based on their Roma ethnic origin, were sought for extradition by Hungary on fraud charges.

The Minister of Justice ordered their surrender, concluding they had not established a continuing risk of persecution.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the Minister has the authority to extradite a refugee, the Minister erred by placing the burden on the refugees to prove they would face persecution if returned.

The Court ruled that under section 44(1)(b) of the Extradition Act, a recognized refugee is presumed to face prejudice, and the burden is on the state to show the person is no longer entitled to refugee protection.

The appellant appealed from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal that set aside his acquittal for extortion and entered a conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a brief oral judgment, dismissed the appeal.

The majority held that the trial judge drew the necessary findings from the evidence and that the substitution of a conviction for the acquittal was justified in the circumstances.

Two justices dissented and would have ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada considered four appeals involving offenders who had been detained for significant periods before being sentenced.

The trial judges imposed custodial sentences of less than two years and probation for three years, taking into account the pre-sentence custody.

In one case, the judge also ordered the offender to serve half his sentence before being eligible for parole.

The Court held that the term of imprisonment is the term imposed by the judge at the time of sentence, and pre-sentence custody is not part of the sentence but a factor taken into account.

Therefore, the sentences were less than two years, making the probation orders valid and the parole ineligibility order invalid.

The appellant was arrested at a secluded marijuana plantation along with four others.

He was convicted at trial of illegal production of marijuana.

The appellant appealed, arguing the verdict was unreasonable as it was based solely on his mere presence at the scene.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction rested on the cumulative effect of his apprehension at the scene, the rejection of his explanation, the nature of the offence, and other circumstantial evidence, rather than mere presence.