Moiz Rahman

The applicant sought directions under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act regarding servers seized in Canada pursuant to a warrant issued to assist a United States criminal investigation.

The applicant proposed that a “clean team” of United States investigators conduct a forensic examination of the servers in Canada and prepare a report to the court identifying potentially relevant evidence before any sending order.

The respondent argued that privacy interests required an independent Canadian forensic examiner instead.

The court held that the clean team proposal, subject to safeguards including supervision by Canadian authorities and prohibition on disclosure to investigators without court authorization, adequately protected privacy interests and complied with the Act and Charter principles.

The court emphasized the importance of international comity and cooperation in mutual legal assistance matters and granted the requested order.

The Attorney General of Canada applied under s. 39(1) of the Extradition Act to transfer electronic devices seized from the respondent to the United States.

The devices were seized when the respondent was arrested under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, prior to his arrest under the Extradition Act.

The court interpreted s. 39(1) and concluded that the term 'arrest' refers only to an arrest made pursuant to the Extradition Act.

Consequently, the application to transfer the items was dismissed.

The Attorney General of Canada sought a sending order under s. 15 of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to provide U.S. authorities with mirror-image copies of thirty-two seized computer servers as part of an international criminal investigation into alleged copyright infringement, conspiracy, money laundering, and racketeering.

The responding party argued the request was overly broad given the enormous volume of data on the servers and the limited evidence linking them to the alleged offences, and sought either refusal of the order or an independent forensic examination report.

The court held that although there were reasonable grounds supporting the initial warrant, privacy interests in the informational contents of computers required careful limits on the scope of disclosure.

Relying on appellate authority emphasizing that computer searches must not provide unfettered access to all stored data, the court concluded that further judicial supervision was required.

The application for a sending order was adjourned and the servers were ordered to be brought before the court so that the scope of material to be sent could be refined.

The Republic of Poland sought the extradition of the applicant for fraud-related offences.

The applicant applied for a stay of proceedings, alleging abuse of process on the basis that Canada had previously attempted a 'disguised extradition' through deportation proceedings at Poland's behest, and that the Attorney General of Canada had engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by improperly withholding relevant documents.

The court found that the deportation proceedings were indeed a disguised extradition initiated solely to appease Poland, and that the Attorney General's defiance of a production order constituted an abuse of process.

A stay of proceedings was granted.