Last updated on October 24th, 2020
Amanda Lord is a lawyer in the Criminal Law and International Assistance group at the Department of Justice of Canada. Her work involves court proceedings regarding Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance requests from foreign states and civil litigation on behalf of government agencies.
In this episode we discuss Extradition and the State of Law.
2:30 Amanda Lord clarifies the distinction between extradition and immigration deporting proceedings. It is a different process with a different set of principles that apply, so it is important that people understand what extradition entails.
6:30 She explains the conditions for which a country will extradite an individual, the international treaties that must have been ratified by the Parties as well as the concept of double criminality.
8:50 Amanda explains the second criteria for extradition which is that it be an indictable offence with a minimum prison sentence of two years.
13:00 We ask about the process of extradition from foreign countries to Canada. Amanda explains that her department is not responsible for these, and she describes the procedures to be followed in such scenarios.
14:45 Amanda explains the extradition treaties to which Canada abides to and the differences between them.
18:45 An overview of the committal process and Charter protections.
25:45 The question of where an individual can be prosecuted is one that is commonly misunderstood. Amanda explains that certain offences such as child pornography or terrorism are to be prosecuted in Canada even if the offence took place in a foreign country.
36:13 An overview of how to challenge the prosecutor’s evidence.
43:00 Amanda provides examples of cases that resolve by way of a voluntary agreement at the Committal stage.Read more ›
Extradition and deportation are two different things. Extradition is the official process whereby one country transfers a suspected or convicted criminal to another country, generally for prosecution. Deportation, on the other hand, is the removal of an individual from a country generally done for the purpose of achieving an immigration objective. In Roncarelli v. Duplessis,  S.C.R. 121, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) recognized that it was an abuse of process for a government department to exercise a statutory power for a reason that is unrelated to the purpose for which that power was granted. In the immigration context, it is accordingly an abuse of process for immigration authorities to initiate removal proceedings against an individual to extradite someone.
In United States v. Rogan, 2014 BCSC 116 (“Rogan”), Justice Fish summarized the principles of what is known as “disguised extradition” as follows: (Citations and paragraph numbers removed)
Deportation and extradition have fundamentally different underlying objectives. Deportation is a discretionary decision made by Canadian immigration authorities aimed at protecting the public good. Extradition, which is initiated by foreign authorities, is aimed at delivering a person sought for prosecution to that foreign authority.
A person subject to extradition proceedings has a panoply of constitutionally-enshrined protections not available to a person subject to an IRPA admissibility hearing. For example, a person ordered extradited is immune from prosecution in the requesting state for offences that have not been identified in the surrender order. By contrast, there are no restrictions on what a deported person can be prosecuted for once removed from Canada.
The essence of a “disguised extradition” claim is that removal proceedings were not instituted to pursue a valid immigration objective, but to procure, on behalf of a foreign state,Read more ›
As the legal community continues to debate whether Bill C-49 is constitutional, the Supreme Court of Canada has indirectly touched upon the issue in Németh v. Canada, a decision about whether a refugee can be extradited to his/her country of origin to face charges. The answer is yes.Read more ›