What is the impact of s. 285(1) of the Criminal Code on the jurisdiction of an extradition hearing?

It is true that an extradition hearing is intended to be an expedited process that ensures Canada’s prompt compliance with international obligations at a minimum of expense: United States of America v. Dynar, 1997 CanLII 359 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 462, at para. 122. At the same time, however, “[o]ne of the most important functions of the extradition hearing is the protection of the liberty of the individual”: Dynar, at para. 121. A meaningful judicial determination of whether the double criminality requirement is met should not be sacrificed on the altar of potential concerns of expediency, comity and cost. These concerns are adequately addressed in the existing extradition process and not undermined by consideration of the viability of a s. 285 defence. In any event, they must be counterbalanced against the need for a meaningful judicial assessment of the case based on the evidence and the law so that the liberty interests of the person sought for extradition are fully respected and protected.