Jay Currie

Section 7 (“fundamental justice”) applies because the extradition order would, if implemented, deprive the respondents of their rights of liberty and security of the person since their lives are potentially at risk. The issue is whether the threatened deprivation is in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Section 7 is concerned not only with the act of extradition, but also with its potential consequences. The balancing process set out in Kindler and Ng is the proper analytical approach. The “shocks the conscience” language signals the possibility that even though the rights of the fugitive are to be considered in the context of other applicable principles of fundamental justice, which are normally of sufficient importance to uphold the extradition, a particular treatment or punishment may sufficiently violate our sense of fundamental justice as to tilt the balance against extradition. The rule is not that departures from fundamental justice are to be tolerated unless in a particular case it shocks the conscience. An extradition that violates the principles of fundamental justice will always shock the conscience.
United States v. Burns
Neutral citation: 2001 SCC 7

I ran into this cite at Rabble’s ongoing discussion of the Emery matter. this is exactly the sort of decision which can be used by Emery at the judicial level and provides another hook for an argument at the Ministerial level. And it is interesting that in this case the Minister used his discretion to sign off on extraditing two people who potentially faced the death penalty in the States, they appealed and the Court found that the failure of the Minister to “seek assurances” was contrary to the fundamental principles of justice….Hmmmm