Robin K. McKechney

The appellant, the sole director of a Canadian company that contracted to supply armoured vehicles to the United States government, appealed his committal for extradition to the US on fraud charges and sought judicial review of the Minister's surrender order.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence that a civil relator action based on the same allegations had been dismissed in the US, arguing this created an issue estoppel and rendered the extradition an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the application for judicial review, holding that the fresh evidence was irrelevant to the extradition hearing judge's limited statutory role and that the Minister reasonably concluded that issue estoppel was a defence to be raised at trial in the requesting state.

The appellant, a personal support worker, pled guilty to assault and criminal harassment.

The Crown and defence agreed on a joint submission for an eight-month conditional sentence and one year's probation.

The sentencing judge rejected the joint submission and imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence followed by a six-month conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal but allowed the sentence appeal, finding the sentencing judge failed to explain why the joint submission was contrary to the public interest or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The sentence was varied to accord with the joint submission.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in his application of the Grant framework after finding a section 8 Charter breach due to the failure to disclose a confidential informant's criminal record in the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The appellant also argued the trial judge misapprehended inconsistencies in the surveillance evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence.

The trial judge reasonably accepted that the officer omitted the record to protect the informant's anonymity, and the surveillance evidence consistently described activities indicative of drug transactions.