Richard A. Kramer

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's decision to extradite him to the Republic of Slovenia.

He argued that the Minister denied him natural justice by rejecting submissions from the Helsinki Monitor Organization without notice, and that the Supreme Court's decision in Németh lowered the standard of proof for persecution under the Extradition Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to disclose his association with the organization or seek reconsideration, and that Németh applies only to certified convention refugees, not refugee applicants.

The appellant appealed a committal order for extradition, arguing the extradition judge erred in appreciating discrepancies in the Record of the Case (ROC).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the discrepancies were minor, corrected in a supplementary ROC, and did not taint the remaining evidence.

Furthermore, sufficient independent evidence existed to justify the committal order on all charges.

The applicant, a Canadian citizen, was sought for extradition by the United States on charges of conspiracy to import marijuana and money laundering.

The Minister of Justice issued an Authority to Proceed for the Canadian offences of importing a controlled substance and possession of property obtained by crime.

After the applicant consented to committal, the Minister ordered his surrender on the U.S. conspiracy charges and declined to seek assurances regarding sentencing standards.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing the surrender order must align with the Canadian offences in the committal order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, applying the Supreme Court's conduct-based approach to double criminality, which does not require alignment between the surrender order and the extradition order.

The appellant, a Canadian resident, was sought for extradition to the United States on charges of failing to remit state sales tax collected at two New York car dealerships.

At the extradition hearing, the appellant sought disclosure of thousands of vehicle sales forms to challenge the investigator's claim that he had signed them.

The extradition judge refused disclosure and ordered committal, and the Minister of Justice subsequently ordered surrender.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the committal, finding that the extradition judge correctly applied the law on disclosure and reasonably concluded that the presumptive reliability of the Record of the Case had not been rebutted.

The application for judicial review of the Minister's surrender decision was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order directing that electronic images of the hard drives of two computers seized from her be sent to France pursuant to warrants issued under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

The appellant argued the warrants lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence to support the issuing judge's conclusion that the appellant's common-law spouse was likely communicating with other members of a terrorist plot using the seized computers.

The Republic of France sought the extradition of the applicant's common law spouse in connection with a terrorist bombing.

The applicant, who was not a target of the investigation, had her home and office work computers seized pursuant to search warrants issued under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

The application judge made a partial sending order directing that electronic images of the hard drives be sent to France, rejecting the applicant's argument that the search violated her s. 8 Charter rights.

The applicant sought leave to appeal the partial sending order.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding that the applicant's claim to a reasonable expectation of privacy in her personal electronic data on her work computers raised a serious issue of general importance.

The applicant appealed a committal for extradition on the basis that he was not linguistically present during the proceedings, as they were not interpreted for him.

The respondent conceded this point.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the committal order, and ordered a new committal hearing, noting that under section 70(1) of the Extradition Act, the required presence of the person sought includes linguistic presence.

The respondent sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's failure to respond to further submissions regarding an extradition surrender order.

The respondent argued this failure violated his Charter rights and sought an interim stay of the surrender order.

The Minister moved to quash the application, arguing no judicially reviewable decision had been made.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash and dismissed the application, finding that the Minister had committed to responding to the submissions and was under no statutory obligation to do so within a fixed time frame.

The appellant appealed an order committing him for extradition to the United States for offences corresponding to providing property or services for terrorist purposes and participating in terrorist activity.

The appellant argued the extradition judge erred in inferring he had the requisite knowledge and intent to assist the LTTE, a designated terrorist group.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's use of false documentation to procure military software and equipment at the behest of an LTTE operative, supported the inference of knowledge or wilful blindness.

The court also rejected the argument that the extradition judge erred by refusing to weigh competing inferences, noting that the Supreme Court's decision in Ferras does not require such weighing.

The applicant, facing extradition to the United States on terrorism-related charges, sought judicial interim release pending the release of the court's reserved judgment on his appeal from a committal order.

The applicant had been on bail without incident for over two years.

The respondent opposed release, citing the public interest and the proximity of a potential surrender.

The court granted the application, finding no enhanced risk of flight and concluding that the public interest did not warrant detention given the applicant's compliance with previous release terms.

The appellant appealed a committal order and sought judicial review of a surrender order to the United States.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the Minister's surrender order, noting that even if the appellant's affidavit was accepted as fresh evidence, it did not afford a basis to remit the issue of surrender to the Minister.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appeal from the committal order was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant appealed his committal for extradition to the United States on charges of conspiracy to traffic marijuana and sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence of inconsistent witness statements, argued the Minister failed to consider prosecuting him in Canada under the Extradition Treaty, and challenged the Minister's refusal to seek return assurances or delay surrender pending Ontario civil forfeiture proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and judicial review, finding the fresh evidence would not have altered the committal and the Minister's discretionary decisions were reasonable.

The Republic of France sought the extradition of the appellant, a Canadian citizen, following his in absentia convictions for forging a travel document and membership in a terrorist organization.

The appellant appealed his committal for surrender on forgery-related offences and sought judicial review of the Minister's surrender order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and application, finding ample evidence to support the committal and concluding that the Minister's surrender decision was reasonable and did not violate the appellant's Charter mobility rights.

The applicant sought to set aside an order of abandonment and reinstate his appeal against committal for extradition.

The applicant had come into possession of new materials that allegedly undermined the sufficiency of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal granted the application, finding it in the interests of justice to reopen the appeal, conditional upon the appeal being perfected by a specified date.

The applicant, a dual citizen of Canada and Germany, sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's decision refusing to accept further submissions regarding a 2004 surrender order for his extradition to Germany to face fiscal offences.

The applicant argued the Minister failed to consider his discretion to refuse extradition of a Canadian national under the extradition treaty, alleged bias, and claimed a lack of adequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the former Minister had implicitly considered and rejected the reciprocity arguments, there was no evidence of bias, and the reasons provided were adequate.

The appellant appealed his committal for extradition and sought judicial review of the Minister's surrender order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the committal, finding that the Authority to Proceed met statutory requirements and a prima facie case was established.

The Court also dismissed the judicial review application, concluding that the Minister reasonably considered the appellant's concerns regarding potential sexual assault in Texas prisons, delay, and his personal circumstances in Canada.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's refusal to reconsider a previous decision to surrender the applicant for extradition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that the Minister's decision was entitled to significant deference.

The court found the Minister reasonably concluded that the applicant raised no new substantive issues and appropriately prioritized the need for finality in the extradition context.

The appellant appealed his conviction on two grounds: prejudice from an amended charge and an unreasonable verdict.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the first ground but allowed the appeal on the second ground.

The court found a basic inconsistency in the trial judge's reasons, as she concluded the appellant intentionally misled customs officials while simultaneously finding him to be an honest witness whose denial of intent she accepted.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The Crown appealed the trial judge's decision to exclude evidence obtained from a wiretap authorization under s. 185 of the Criminal Code, which led to the respondents' acquittals on drug smuggling charges.

The Court of Appeal found that the unchallenged affidavit evidence met the requirements of s. 186(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code, providing reasonable grounds and demonstrating investigative necessity.

Furthermore, the Court held that even if a s. 8 Charter breach had occurred, the evidence should have been admitted under s. 24(2) because the police reasonably relied on a facially valid judicial authorization and the evidence was non-conscriptive.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittals were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.