Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Applicant
– and –
HARDEEP RATTE and GURPREET SINGH, Respondents/Persons sought for extradition
BEFORE: Justice E.M. Morgan
COUNSEL: Kandia Aird and Adrienne Rice, for the Attorney General of Canada Ravin Pillay, for Hardeep Ratte Brian Greenspan and Naomi Lutes, for Gurpreet Singh
HEARD: May 20, 2026 and follow-up
ADDENDUM TO FURTHER DISCLOSURE DECISION OF 25.05.2026
1On May 25, 2026, I issued a decision on disclosure issues that have arisen in this extradition application. That decision called for further review of certain redacted evidence produced by AG Canada.
2I have now had an opportunity to review the unredacted ITO on which the Court of Quebec issued its authorization for audio/visual recordings in relation to this matter. I have also reviewed the judicial summary of the redacted version of the ITO, as well as the redacted audio/visual recordings provided to me by counsel for AG Canada. In my reasons for decision of May 25, 2026, I had requested that these materials be forwarded to me for review in order to complete my decision on disclosure issues.
3I am satisfied that the redactions on the ITO as submitted by AG Canada are necessary and fall within the ambit of public interest privilege. Each redaction is specifically delineated in the judicial summary, and the reasons for invoking public interest privilege are set out point-by-point. Defense counsel had previously received copies of the redacted ITO, and it is my understanding that they have now received copies of the 6-page judicial summary of those redactions; if not, counsel for AG Canada is to provide the judicial summary to them.
4A review of the unredacted ITO establishes that there is an ongoing police investigation. It makes it clear that much detailed information leading up to and collected pursuant to this authorization cannot be disclosed without potentially undermining the investigation and/or jeopardizing public safety. Accordingly, the need for the redactions is established.
5I am equally satisfied that the redactions on the audio/visual recording fall within the same categories of privilege as those on the ITO. There appear to be fewer redactions on the recording than on the ITO; those redactions occasionally obscure a person’s face without otherwise interrupting the audio or video. Also, there are a few extended periods of silence on the audio recordings that seem to be redactions. In those segments it is hard to know what is going on, but that is unavoidable with an audio redaction. One can gather from the context of the silent moments that these are, like the visual redactions, designed to protect an ongoing investigation and/or public safety. Overall, however, the audio on all of the recordings is mostly uninterrupted.
6Generally speaking, the visual and audio quality of these recordings is such that they require considerable patience and focused attention. There are, for example, some lengthy visual sequences showing nothing but a bouncing dashboard in a moving car, accompanied by talking between persons that is sometimes difficult to discern. However, any difficulties of that nature are inherent to the recording itself, and do not appear to be due to redactions or anything else that has been imposed on the recording.
7AG Canada has satisfied its disclosure obligations by producing redacted copies of the ITO, the judicial summary of the redactions, and the redacted audio/visual recordings. Those will be in the record for this extradition application.
8The unredacted copy of the ITO is not producible and will not form part of the evidence in this extradition application. I order it to be held by the court separately under seal, and not to be accessed by the parties or the public without leave of the court.
Date: June 15, 2026 Morgan J.