Michael C. Blanchflower

The appellant, a Canadian citizen, fled to Canada after being acquitted of a federal kidnapping charge in the United States.

She faced extradition to Ohio on a state charge of child stealing arising from the same incident.

She argued that extradition would violate her rights against double jeopardy under sections 7 and 11(h) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

However, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that section 11(h) does not apply to extradition hearings because the Charter cannot govern foreign criminal proceedings.

While section 7 applies to the Canadian executive's decision to surrender a fugitive, the surrender in this case did not violate the principles of fundamental justice because the federal and state offences contained different elements.

The Republic of Argentina appealed a decision discharging the respondent from extradition proceedings due to a 17-month delay.

The extradition judge had found the delay violated the respondent's right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that s. 11(b) does not apply to extradition hearings, which are not trials but proceedings to determine if there is sufficient evidence to surrender a fugitive.

The Court also found no abuse of process or violation of s. 7 of the Charter, noting the delay was largely due to the foreign authorities and not attributable to Canadian officials.

Furthermore, the Court held that an extradition judge is not a court of competent jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies.

The appellant sought the extradition of the respondents for an aircraft hijacking alleged to have occurred in 1969.

The respondents returned to Canada in 1979, but the appellant did not request extradition until 1984.

The extradition judge granted a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, finding the delay violated the respondents' s. 7 rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that an extradition judge is not a court of competent jurisdiction under s. 24(1), the Charter does not apply to the actions of foreign governments, and the mere surrender of a fugitive pursuant to a treaty does not violate the principles of fundamental justice.