Wes Wilson

The United States sought the extradition of the appellant for attempted murder and other offences.

The appellant appealed the committal order, arguing that the evidentiary provisions of the Extradition Act (ss. 32, 33, 34) violate section 7 of the Charter by allowing the admission of unreliable, unsworn evidence, such as hearsay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the principles of fundamental justice in the extradition context must respect the differences in foreign legal systems.

The court found that the impugned provisions do not violate the Charter and that the extradition judge is not required to assess the reliability of the evidence tendered by the requesting state.

The appellant appealed his conviction for break, enter and theft.

The trial judge had convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence, specifically that his promise to appear from an unrelated matter was found inside the premises.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, finding that there was no evidence of a break-in, no evidence the appellant entered the premises, and the presence of the promise to appear did not establish that the appellant was the thief.

The circumstantial case could not reasonably support the finding that the appellant was the only reasonable inference.

The appellant appealed from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissing his appeal from an extradition judge's order committing him for surrender and dismissing his application for judicial review of the Minister of Justice's decision ordering his surrender.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons of the court below, finding that the surrender did not infringe the appellant's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.