Roy Wing Yeung Lee

Tenzin Norbu appealed a committal order for extradition to the United States on immigration fraud charges and sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order.

The alleged scheme involved preparing and selling fraudulent documentation and false narratives to asylum seekers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal, finding sufficient identification evidence and evidence for the broader fraudulent scheme, and the application for judicial review, upholding the Minister's decision not to seek assurances regarding potential deportation to China.

The appellant appealed an extradition order and sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order related to fraud charges in the U.S. The core issues included an alleged s. 8 Charter breach regarding the use of passport photographs, a request for additional disclosure, and an argument of improper delegation by the Minister.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and judicial review, finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in passport photos, no basis for further disclosure, and that the Minister's decision was reasonable and entitled to deference.

Loukia Georgiou sought leave to appeal a lower court's dismissal of her application for relief from forfeiture of $9.3 million, which a U.S. court had ordered forfeited as proceeds of crime belonging to her son.

The funds were restrained in Canada under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

The motion judge determined that the proposed appeal required leave under s. 35 of the Act, not an appeal as of right under the Criminal Code, and found that the grounds raised by the applicant did not constitute questions of law alone justifying leave.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Khaophone Sychantha, appealed an extradition order to the United States on drug-related charges.

He argued that the extradition hearing was unfair due to his unrepresented status and that the identification evidence was flawed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no material unfairness in the hearing despite the appellant's self-representation, noting that he had discharged multiple lawyers.

The court also reiterated that an extradition judge's role is not to evaluate the strength, credibility, or reliability of evidence unless it is "so defective" or "so unreliable," and that challenges to identification quality are matters for trial.

Loukia Georgiou, mother of a convicted U.S. fraudster, applied for a declaration of entitlement to CAD$9.3 million, which were subject to a U.S. forfeiture order and frozen in Canada via a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request.

She claimed the funds were either held in trust for her or due to her from a commercial agreement.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a valid interest in the funds and that her claim, supported by highly suspicious documents and implausible oral agreements, was a transparent attempt to avoid forfeiture.

The court found the applicant and her son's evidence lacked credibility.

Mr. Kalu sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order for his extradition to the United States on charges of mail fraud and money laundering.

He argued the surrender would violate his s. 7 Charter rights and be unjust or oppressive due to risks of systemic racism in the US, potential deportation to Nigeria, and the impact on his family.

The Court of Appeal applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding the Minister's decision fell within a range of reasonable outcomes.

The court dismissed Mr. Kalu's fresh evidence and rejected his new argument regarding pre-trial custody credit, affirming that such credit is a matter for the sentencing stage in the requesting state.

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.

An appeal from a committal order for extradition to the United States.

The appellant challenged the committal judge's dismissal of a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence obtained from searches of electronic devices.

The searches were authorized by warrants based on information from an iPhone examined and seized during U.S. Customs preclearance at Pearson Airport.

The Court of Appeal found that the examination of the iPhone violated section 8 of the Charter because it occurred after the appellant was detained.

The court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for a new extradition hearing to determine whether the evidence should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter and whether sufficient evidence remains for committal.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for sexual assault charges in 2002 and received an absolute discharge from the Ontario Review Board in 2003.

He challenged the constitutionality of Christopher's Law (Sex Offender Registry) and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA), which imposed mandatory lifetime sex offender registration and reporting requirements on him with no possibility of exemption.

The Court of Appeal found that while the legislation did not violate section 7 of the Charter (fundamental justice), it violated section 15(1) (equality rights) by discriminating against persons found NCRMD who received absolute discharges.

The court declared the provisions of no force or effect as applied to such persons, suspended the declaration for 12 months, but exempted the appellant from the suspension, ordering his removal from the registries.

The applicants, Fercan Developments Inc. and GRVN Group Inc., challenged the constitutional validity of sections 16 and 19 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which permit courts to order forfeiture of offence-related property.

The applicants raised three constitutional questions: whether the forfeiture provisions were ultra vires Parliament as relating to property and civil rights; whether they violated section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 by conferring jurisdiction on provincial courts; and whether they violated the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The court upheld the constitutional validity of all challenged provisions, finding that forfeiture is a valid exercise of Parliament's criminal law power, that the Ontario Court of Justice may constitutionally exercise forfeiture jurisdiction, and that procedural safeguards meet Bill of Rights requirements.