Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance

Mr. Martin and his associates are actively engaged in the defense of persons sought for extradition to countries that have filed criminal charges or indictments. The nature of the extradition defense that may be advanced may be legal or factual and is nuanced and contextual.

For example, Mr. Martin assisted both the director of a Mexican bank United Mexican States v. Ortega [2004] B.C.J. No. 402 (B.C.S.C.) (opens pdf) and the promoter of a Canadian oil and gas company USA v. Shull, 2004 BCSC 908 (opens pdf) to successfully attack the constitutionality of certain provisions of Canada’s Extradition Act at their extradition committal hearings. And although the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately upheld the validity of the challenged provisions by increasing the evidentiary burden on the requesting state to justify its extradition request United States v. Ferras & Latty, [2006] S.C.C. 33 (opens pdf) and United Mexican States v. Ortega & U.S.A v. Fiessel, [2006] S.C.C. 34 (opens pdf) Mexico ultimately abandoned its extradition request for Ortega and the Boston U.S. Attorney ultimately agreed to a non-custodial sentence in order to effect the settlement of the market manipulation indictment in the Fiessel proceedings.
By way of further example, as Mr. Martin has always been a leading advocate for the maintenance of the fundamental justice rule of law standards contained within Charter s. 7┬áhe has raised that campaign in the face of illegal operations undertaken in Canada by United States law enforcement authorities. Notably, Mr. Martin has recently been successful in persuading Superior Court judges in both British Columbia and Ontario to denounce illegal U.S. operations undertaken in Canada with the result that U.S. requests for the extradition of the targets of such operations were dismissed as an abuse of process in U.S.A. v. Licht, [2002] B.C.S.C. 1151 (opens pdf) and U.S.A. v. Tollman [2006] O.J. No. 3672 (opens pdf). Significantly, no appeal was taken by the U.S.A. from either of these emphatic rulings which were recently adopted by the Ontario Court of Appeal in refusing a U.S. extradition request in relation to the U.S. “terrorism” indictment U.S.A. v. Khadr 2011 ONCA 358 at paras. 47 to 49 (opens pdf).
At the moment M+A is in the process of resisting extradition and MLAT requests in a variety of contexts including in relation to allegations of fraud, tax evasion, stock market manipulation, foreign corrupt practices and breach of trade embargos.