No Sworn Evidence. The current Extradition Act requires no sworn evidence at all to deprive a Canadian of liberty, “that most precious thing” [in the words of retired Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin]. An unsworn allegation by a foreign official is all that is required to take away a person’s liberty. The allegation is put in a document known as a Record of the Case.

Loss of Liberty. Loss of liberty in one’s own country is serious and severe. Extradition imperils liberty even more extremely because the subject is sent off to a foreign country, far from family, friends and a known culture.

No protections for the person sought. The accused does not have the normal procedural protections of the domestic justice system—full disclosure of all evidence (for or against), sworn evidence, the right to challenge through cross-examination (the foreign official who signed the ROC can’t even be questioned), and the right to present evidence showing innocence.

Unsworn allegation presumed reliable. The unsworn allegation of the foreign official is “presumed” to be “reliable evidence”. The presumption of reliability cloaks the allegation in a powerful presumption that compels Canadian judges to regard the allegation—whatever they actually think of it—as reliable evidence of participation in a crime. This presumption reverses the presumption of innocence at the heart of Canada’s legal system.

Impossible to prove “manifest unreliability”. Jurisprudence under the Extradition Act puts the person sought in the nearly impossible position of proving that the ROC is “manifestly unreliable”. There is no way to defend oneself.

Lack of disclosure. There is no obligation on the foreign state to make full disclosure. The foreign state can “cherry-pick” what suits the foreign official and omit even clear evidence of innocence. The Supreme Court of Canada had ruled unanimously that full disclosure is required in all criminal cases. Extradition is a criminal proceeding. Yet, Canada’s Department of Justice lawyers feel entitled by the Extradition Act to ignore this principle and to suppress evidence of innocence.

Extradition is not reciprocal. Extradition is (supposedly) justified based on inter-nation “comity”. However, while Canada sends Canadians at French request to France—trusting their legal system—France refuses to extradite French citizens to Canada. France does not trust the Canadian legal system to try its citizens. There is in truth no “comity” to justify extradition to France.

Extradition should be for trial, not investigation. The Supreme Court of Canada in 2006 confirmed that “The whole purpose of the extradition is to send the person sought to the requesting country for trial. To send the person there to languish in prison without trial is antithetical to the principles upon which extradition and the comity that supports it are based.” However, Canadian courts have failed to uphold this requirement, and Canadian citizens are extradited and allowed to languish in a foreign prison, in solitary confinement, for years. Such is the legal culture in Canada toward extradition—the expectation that, inevitably, extradition will be granted.

The Minister of Justice fails to exercise discretion. Canadian Ministers of Justice have a discretion to decline to surrender Canadians to foreign states when the case is such that surrender would be “unjust” or “oppressive”. However, Ministers of Justice routinely fail to exercise discretion, even in cases where there are serious evidentiary grounds to question the foreign state’s case. This further undermines protections for the person sought.