As an adjunct to its extradition practice M+A also has extensive experience in resisting efforts to remove its clients from Canada pursuant to various provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) rather than through Extradition Act processes and procedures (See: Charter of Rights and Extradition).
Test case litigation is afoot in B.C. in Rogan v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (For details see: Charter of Rights Notice of Constitutional Question). In Ontario similar questions have recently been litigated in Tursunbayev v Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 2012 FC 532 and Attorney General (Canada) v. Bartoszewicz, 2012 ONSC 250.
The Canadian Border Services Agency seems to be attempting to use IRPA provisions with greater frequency to seek to remove persons from Canada who are sought for trial in other countries, even if Canada has already entered into an Extradition Treaty with such countries. This policy tendency seems to be more pronounced when the person is sought by a country with which Canada does not have an Extradition Treaty (i.e. ironically from those countries that Canada does not deem to have an independent judiciary or adequate human rights standards) notwithstanding that s. 10 of the Canadian Extradition Act explicitly contemplates that Canada can enter into “specific agreements” so as to effect extradition if appropriate in the circumstances of any “particular case”.
M+A is dedicated to ensuring that all those whom Canada seeks to remove to a third requesting state where they have been charged with a criminal offence gain the benefit of full due process and their legal rights under Canadian law. As a result M+A will continue to litigate test cases and constitutional challenges to the improper use of IRPA to effect extradition purposes until the law in this regard has been settled, one way or another.