Canadian extradition law raises a number of important questions concerning the nature of judicial review, the role of international law in domestic law, and the significance of international human rights law in the interpretation of domestic constitutional provisions. Canadian courts recently have been faced with a number of cases addressing the relevance of the treatment that a fugitive may face in the requesting state. In addition, the courts have struggled with the appropriate role of citizenship in the extradition process. This Article argues that the appropriate standard of review in extradition cases is a residual threshold standard that is generally deferential but that would allow judicial intervention in clear cases. It also argues that citizenship should play a relatively narrow role in the extradition process but proposes a greater role for it in transnational offense cases. The international public interest should be given considerable weight in constitutional decisions relating to extradition, and courts should be reluctant to intervene except in cases in which international human rights norms would impose state responsibility upon Canada if the court did not act
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.