What is the committal test for an extradition judge?

United States of America v. Ferras, 2006 SCC 33 reviewed the committal test and set out the principles governing the extradition judge’s role: (a) the judge must look at all the evidence and determine whether it discloses a case on which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could convict (paras. 38, 48, 54); (b) the judge must not determine guilt or innocence nor make determinations of the evidence’s actual reliability; those matters are for the trial court (paras. 53-54, 68); (c) the judge may engage in a limited weighing of evidence to determine the evidence’s sufficiency for committal to trial (para. 46); (d) the issue in assessing reliability is threshold reliability, namely whether the evidence tendered possesses sufficient indicia of reliability to make it worth consideration by the extradition judge (paras. 53-54); (e) certification of evidence by the requesting state vests the evidence with presumptions of threshold reliability and availability for trial. Unless rebutted, the presumption will stand (paras. 29-32, 58, 66, 76); (f) the certified evidence may be hearsay or other evidence that would be inadmissible under Canadian law without detracting from the presumption of threshold reliability (paras. 28-32, 76-77); and (g) an extradition judge has the discretion to disregard evidence shown to be insufficient, including where the evidence is manifestly unreliable or unavailable for trial such that using the evidence would dangerous or unsafe to commit (paras. 40, 50, 54, 65).