Does the Minister of Justice have concurrent jurisdiction to re-examine the issue of international treaty applicability?

In Karas, Thailand sought the appellant’s extradition for prosecution in that country for an alleged murder. The appellant challenged the validity of the treaty relied upon by Thailand, arguing that it ceased to apply to Canada when the new Act came into force and repealed the former extradition legislation. Lysyk J. held that the statutory framework contemplates a decision by the Minister as to treaty applicability, and leaves no room for concurrent jurisdiction on the part of the extradition judge to re-examine the same issue. At para. 16 he found that such reconsideration “would not be in accord with legislative intent that the extradition hearing be ‘… an expedited process, designed to keep expenses to a minimum and ensure prompt compliance with Canada’s international obligations’”: citing United States of America v. Dynar, 1997 CanLII 359 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 462 at para. 122.