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.

The appellant appealed an order of committal for extradition to the United States on the offence of fraud.

He argued the hearing judge erred in finding evidence linking him to the alias 'Marc Richards' and linking that alias to the fraudulent scheme.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence in the record, including emails and a passport photo, linking the appellant to the alias and the fraudulent scheme.

The appellant sought judicial review of the Minister's decision ordering his unconditional surrender to the requesting state, arguing that a four-year delay between the arrest of his co-conspirators and the extradition request constituted an abuse of process.

The Minister concluded the delay was adequately explained by the requesting state and did not offend notions of fair play.

The Court of Appeal held that the Minister was entitled to accept the requesting state's representations and found her decision reasonable.

The appeal from the committal order was abandoned and dismissed, and the application for judicial review was dismissed.

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 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 appealed a committal order under the Extradition Act, arguing the committal judge erred in refusing to order particulars of the conspiracy in the authority to proceed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the authority to proceed complied with s. 15(3)(c) of the Extradition Act, which does not require the Minister of Justice to provide particulars of the corresponding Canadian offences.

In an extradition hearing arising from U.S. fraud charges, the respondent sought disclosure of correspondence between Canadian and U.S. authorities and a stay based on alleged abuse of process after domestic charges had earlier been stayed.

The court held that unexplained delay and speculative concern about use of preliminary inquiry admissions in the foreign prosecution did not establish prejudice, particularly absent expert evidence on foreign law.

Applying the air of reality threshold for state misconduct allegations and the limited role of the extradition judge under the extradition jurisprudence, the court found no evidentiary foundation for compelled disclosure or a stay.

The court held that such disclosure and broader process concerns were primarily for the Minister of Justice, and committed the respondent for extradition.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to extend the suspension of a declaration of invalidity to September 30, 2014.

The extension was requested because legislation responding to the court's previous decision was still proceeding through parliament.

As the request was reasonable and consented to by all parties and the amicus curiae, the Court of Appeal granted the motion.

The applicant, convicted of first-degree murder and unsuccessful on appeal to the Court of Appeal, sought a declaration that he was not required to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada before applying for ministerial review of his conviction under s. 696.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Attorney General of Ontario argued that all appeal avenues, including a leave application to the Supreme Court, must be exhausted before ministerial review could proceed.

The court held that although the phrase “rights of judicial review or appeal” includes the right to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, the concept of exhaustion must be interpreted flexibly.

Determining whether appeal rights have been exhausted is a discretionary screening decision for the Minister of Justice, not the provincial Attorney General.

The court declared that the Minister may determine that appeal rights are exhausted even where no leave application to the Supreme Court has been made.

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.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of Japan, applied to commit the respondent for extradition to face a charge of using a forged passport.

The respondent cross-applied for a stay of proceedings, arguing the extradition was an abuse of process because Japan's true motive was to interrogate him about an unsolved 1995 triple murder.

The respondent also sought to exclude evidence obtained from an accomplice who was on death row in China.

The court dismissed the cross-applications, finding that Japan's dual investigative and prosecutorial purposes did not constitute an abuse of process, and that the accomplice evidence was neither manifestly unreliable nor gathered abusively.

Finding sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case and the respondent's identity, the court ordered the respondent committed for extradition.

The applicant, who was found not criminally responsible (NCR), was granted an absolute discharge by the Ontario Review Board.

The Crown appealed, which automatically suspended the absolute discharge under s. 672.75 of the Criminal Code, reverting the applicant to a conditional discharge.

The applicant brought a motion challenging the constitutionality of the automatic suspension.

The Court of Appeal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the motion and found that s. 672.75 violates ss. 7 and 9 of the Charter by depriving the NCR accused of liberty without due process and arbitrarily detaining them.

The violations were not saved by s. 1.

The court declared the offending words in s. 672.75 of no force and effect, suspended for 12 months.

The applicant's motion to set aside a judgment quashing his application for judicial review was previously dismissed.

The court determined costs for that motion.

The Attorney General of Canada sought full indemnity costs, while the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport sought partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $14,000 to the Attorney General and $7,000 to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport.