Court File and Parties
Citation: United States of America v. LaForme, 2010 ONCA 532 Date: 20100722 Docket: C50776
Court of Appeal for Ontario Doherty, Gillese and Armstrong JJ.A.
Between:
The Attorney General of Canada on Behalf of the United States of America Applicant (Respondent on Appeal)
and
Neal LaForme Respondent (Appellant)
Counsel: Brigitte Gratl, J.D., for the appellant Moiz Rahman, for the respondent
Heard: July 22, 2010
On appeal from the order of committal entered by Justice Marshall of the Superior Court of Justice dated July 6, 2009.
Appeal Book Endorsement
1The Record of the Case contains an outline of the anticipated evidence of the alleged co-conspirator. That outline (see paras. 19-20) constitutes evidence directly admissible against the appellant to prove both the conspiracy and the substantive offence. The co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule is not engaged by evidence of a co-conspirator which describes acts and declarations of the person against whom the evidence is offered: see R. v. Connelly (2001), 2001 NLCA 31, 176 C.C.C. (3d) 292 at para. 22 (Nfld. C.A.). The evidence outlined above was sufficient to justify a committal order under s. 29 of the Act.
2The extradition judge did not rely on the photograph supplied by the requesting state to prove identification. He found, however, that identification was established through a combination of circumstances which he set out in the second last paragraph of his reasons. These circumstances provided a basis upon which the judge could be satisfied that the appellant was the person referred to in the request for extradition.
3The appeal is dismissed.