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

[1] The 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.

[2] The 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.

[3] The appeal is dismissed.