Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: United States v. Okorhi, 2020 ONCA 89

DATE: 2020-02-05

DOCKET: C65996

BEFORE: Miller, Fairburn and Thorburn JJ.A.

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal of a committal order pursuant to s. 49 of the Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18

BETWEEN

The Attorney General of Canada (On behalf of the United States of America)

Respondent

and

Benard Emurhowhoariogho Okorhi

Appellant

Counsel: Gord Cudmore, for the appellant Roy Lee, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: January 31, 2020

On appeal from the committal order of Justice Jonathon George of the Superior Court of Justice, dated September 18, 2018.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] An order of committal for extradition was issued in this case to await surrender to the United States on the offence of fraud. The appellant does not dispute the hearing judge’s articulation of the test for committal. Rather, he maintains that the hearing judge erred by finding that there was evidence in the Record of the Case and Supplementary Record of the Case linking the appellant to a man named “Marc Richards” and linking Marc Richards to the fraudulent scheme.

[2] We do not agree.

[3] There is ample evidence of a fraudulent scheme resulting in well over $1 million of actual deprivation. There is evidence linking the appellant to the name Marc Richards and evidence linking Marc Richards to the scheme.

[4] We do not intend to repeat the trial judge’s reasons for coming to those conclusions, all of which are rooted in the evidence before him. The evidence included emails sent to and from the Marc Richards email account that made reference to the appellant’s name, a quote that was provided under his name, and a passport photo attached as an Exhibit to the Record of the Case that the hearing judge concluded was a representation of the appellant.

[5] Equally, there is evidence linking Marc Richards to the fraudulent scheme, including emails between the Richards account and other alleged co-actors, which emails refer to the very schemes that form the foundation of some of the complaints in this case. The appellant is also linked to a corporate interest that received fraudulent proceeds.

[6] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

“B.W. Miller J.A.”

“Fairburn J.A.”

“Thorburn J.A.”