Rebecca Sewell

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order for extradition to the United States, arguing violations of Charter sections 6 (right to remain in Canada) and 7 (fundamental justice due to sentencing disparity), and that the surrender would be unjust or oppressive under the Extradition Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the Minister's decision was reasonable, had properly considered the Cotroni factors, and that the potential sentencing disparity did not meet the high threshold of "shocking the conscience" required to violate section 7 or render the surrender unjust or oppressive.

The United States sought the extradition of the respondent for sex trafficking offences.

The Attorney General of Canada sought an order for committal under the Extradition Act, based on the corresponding Canadian offence of receiving a financial or other material benefit from human trafficking.

The respondent argued that the conduct amounted only to prostitution, which is legal in Canada, thus failing the double criminality requirement.

The court found that the essence of the offence was exploitation and human trafficking, not merely prostitution.

Finding sufficient evidence of the essential elements of the Canadian offence, the court ordered the respondent committed into custody to await extradition.

In an extradition proceeding, the respondent, Zong Tao Chen, sought by the U.S. for sex trafficking, filed a constitutional challenge to s. 286.2 of the Criminal Code, alleging infringements of ss. 2(d) and 7 of the Charter.

The Attorney General of Canada moved to summarily dismiss this challenge.

The court granted the dismissal, finding that s. 286.2 was not the provision before the court in the current Authority to Proceed (ATP), which cited s. 279.02.

The court also ruled that a constitutional invalidation of one provision cannot be analogized to another with different elements, and noted that s. 279.02 had already been declared constitutional in a prior case (R. v. D’Souza).

Additionally, the respondent failed to provide sufficient notice as required by the Criminal Proceeding Rules.

A case management conference was held to review the progress of the action.

The parties reported compliance with several steps in the established timetable, including the delivery of pleadings, supplementary affidavits of documents, and written examination questions.

However, due to the volume and scope of the written questions, the parties requested an adjournment to assess the time needed to respond.

The court adjourned the conference to allow the parties to confer and propose a variation to the timetable.

The person sought in an extradition proceeding brought two pre-hearing applications.

First, he sought discharge, arguing the Minister of Justice failed to sign the Authority to Proceed within the strict timelines of the Extradition Act.

Second, he sought disclosure of materials related to the Minister's decision to substitute a new Authority to Proceed and materials from a related Toronto Police Service investigation.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that the Authority to Proceed was signed within the 90-day statutory limit.

The court also held that there was no air of reality to the abuse of process claim regarding the substituted Authority to Proceed, and that the person sought was not entitled to disclosure of the Canadian police investigation because the requesting state did not rely on Canadian-gathered evidence.

Mr. Raza, who fled the United States after pleading guilty to identity theft and aggravated identity theft, sought bail in Canada on an Extradition Act proceeding.

He argued that a release plan mitigated flight risk and cited health issues, including a vulnerable immune system, making him susceptible to Covid-19.

The court dismissed the bail application, finding an overwhelming flight risk due to his prior escape, sophisticated planning, and lack of ties in Canada.

The proposed sureties were deemed inadequate.

While acknowledging Covid-19 as a factor, the court found insufficient evidence of Mr. Raza's particular vulnerability or that incarceration posed a higher risk than release, especially given measures taken by correctional institutions.

Detention was also deemed necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice given the gravity of the offence and the strength of the prosecution's case.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, sought an order for the committal of Tony Dada Akinbobola and Harry Cole for extradition to the USA for prosecution related to a fraudulent lottery scheme targeting elderly victims.

The court dismissed the application against Akinbobola due to insufficient evidence, finding that the allegations were bald assertions lacking sufficient detail or connection to him, and that the evidence did not establish he was the actual user of alleged email accounts or phone numbers.

However, the court granted the application against Cole, finding sufficient evidence to meet the test for committal, despite arguments regarding the reliability of accomplice and confidential witness testimony.

The applicant, Nadal Diya, sought bail pending an extradition hearing to the United States on charges of fraud and misuse of visas.

The applicant was arrested in Toronto on a provisional warrant.

The court considered the applicant's significant wealth, lack of ties to Canada, and history of using fraudulent passports as factors indicating a high flight risk.

While the applicant proposed a $10,000 (later $100,000) cash deposit and supervision by family friends, the court deemed this insufficient.

Applying modified bail principles for extradition cases, the court granted bail but imposed a significantly increased cash deposit of CDN $1,000,000, along with electronic monitoring and other conditions, to ensure the applicant's attendance.