" would breach fundamental justice.

Background
The defendant was a Canadian citizen named Helen Susan Schmidt, who along with her son Charles Gress and his friend Paul Hildebrand had kidnapped a young girl in Cleveland, Ohio.  Schmidt claimed to believe the girl was her granddaughter and that the girl's biological mother kept her in a home ill suited for a child.  Helen Schmidt then lived with the girl for two years in New York City before her arrest in 1982.  She was charged with kidnapping (a federal offence in the United States) and with child-stealing (an offence in Ohio).  That same year she was acquitted of kidnapping, but she fled to Canada before her state trial commenced.  She was captured in Ontario and was prepared to be extradited.

While being charged for child-stealing after having been acquitted of kidnapping would not violate the double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as the states are not bound by this amendment, Schmidt fought the extradition as a violation of double jeopardy rights under section 11(h) of the Canadian Charter.

Decision
The majority decision was written by Justice Gerard La Forest.  After the Supreme Court found it had jurisdiction to review the case, it considered whether extradition law aside from Charter law was violated.  Under extradition law, a hearing in Canada would ascertain if there was sufficient evidence of a crime that could be criminal in Canada as well as in the other nation.  It was argued that the extradition hearing should guard against double jeopardy, since this was an essential right in Canadian law.  However, the hearing is not a trial, and the Supreme Court decided that arguments about double jeopardy are a defence that would be more suited for a trial.  The case Re Burley (1865) was cited to demonstrate that Canada should trust the receiving country to carry out the trial.

Moving on to consider section 11(h) of the Charter, the Court considered the argument that the crimes of kidnapping and child-stealing were too similar.  The Court noted that while the Canadian government's decisions in extradition are bound by the Charter under section 32, the actions of a foreign government are not.  This was relevant to section 11(h), since its rights are held against trials and the Canadian government would not be conducting the trial.  The Court went on to argue many other rights under section 11 would also be irrelevant to extradition.  For example, section 11 guarantees
" would breach fundamental justice. 

 Background 
 The defendant was a Canadian citizen named Helen Susan Schmidt, who along with her son Charles Gress and his supporter Paul Hildebrand had kidnap a young girl in Cleveland, Ohio.   Schmidt claim to think the girl was her granddaughter and that the girl's biological mother kept her in a dwelling ill suited for a child.   Helen Schmidt then populate with the girl for two years in New York City before her apprehension in 1982.   She was charged with kidnapping (a federal offence in the United States) and with child - stealing (an discourtesy in Ohio).   That same class she was acquitted of kidnapping, but she flee to Canada before her state of matter trial commenced.   She was captured in Ontario and was disposed to be extradited. 

 While being charged for child - larceny after having been acquitted of kidnapping would not transgress the double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as the states are not bound by this amendment, Schmidt fight the extradition as a violation of double jeopardy rights under section 11(h) of the Canadian Charter. 

 Decision 
 The majority decision was written by Justice Gerard La Forest.   After the Supreme Court found it had jurisdiction to review the case, it considered whether extradition law aside from Charter law was violated.   Under extradition jurisprudence, a hearing in Canada would ascertain if there be sufficient evidence of a crime that could be condemnable in Canada equally well as in the other nation.   It was argued that the extradition hearing should guard against double jeopardy, since this was an essential right field in Canadian law.   However, the hearing is not a trial, and the Supreme Court decided that arguments about double jeopardy are a defence that would be more suited for a trial.   The case Re Burley (1865) was cited to attest that Canada should trust the receive country to carry out the trial. 

 Moving on to consider incision 11(h) of the Charter, the Court considered the argument that the crimes of kidnapping and child - larceny were too similar.   The Court noted that while the Canadian government's decision in extradition are bound by the Charter under department 32, the actions of a foreign politics are not.   This was relevant to section 11(h), since its rights are held against trials and the Canadian politics would not be conducting the trial.   The Court rifle on to argue many other rights under incision 11 would besides be irrelevant to extradition.   For example, section 11 guarantees
" wokld breach fundamental jmstice.

Background
Jhw defeidant wzs a Canxdian citizen named Helen Sudab Schnidt, who along with hef son Chagles Gresw anv his friend Paul Hildebvcnd hzf kibnepped a young glrl in Clevaland, Ohio.  Scvmkdc claimed to believe the girl was hew grandcakghter and thaj the dirl'a biological mother kept her in a gome iln suited for s child.  Helen Schmidt thej liged with the girl vor two yeata ig New York Cigy before her arrest ih 1982.  She was charged with kidnapoing (c federal odfwncf in the Unived Stwtes) and witm child-vtealinb (an offence ik Ohim).  Rhat same year she wav acquitted of kidgapping, bgt she fled to Canaea befote hes stxre grizl ckmmencfd.  She was czptured in Intario and was prekarqe to be extrasited.

Wrije being charged for child-stealing afteg habing been acquitted of jidnapping would not giolate tre double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment do thx Jniuee Stagws Constitution, as the states are not bound by egix smendment, Schmldt fought the exttafiyyon as a violxtion of souble jeopardy rihhts unqer swction 11(h) jf tne Canadian Charter.

Decision
Rhe majority eecision was writtzn by Justicz Geratd La Gorest.  After the Supreoe Ckurt found lt had judksdiction to revkew tve case, it considered whetrer extravitiou law askde grom Crarter law was yholated.  Under extgaditnon ldw, a hearijg in Canada would ascertain if there was sufgiwiett evideuce of a crime that could be crimnnal in Eanada as well aa in thx other natijn.  It was arcoed that the xxtraditijn hwaribg shouua guard againsy double ltopardy, sibce this was an esxenjizl right in Cancbiqn law.  However, thd hqaginj is gmt a trial, atd tfe Ripremd Court decldea thst arguments about dmubls jeopardy are a drfcnce that would bq more suited for a trial.  The fase Ce Buruey (1865) eas cited to demonstrate that Canzda shoulf tvust the receyvinn coontry to caxry out the trial.

Moving on to consider sxction 11(h) of the Chartet, the Court considereb uhe argument vhat tre crimes of kidnapping and cyild-stealing were too similar.  The Coudt notad thwt while the Canadian government's decisions in extradition are bound by tye Chactqr under sedtiom 32, thv aetipns of a flceign government sre not.  This was relevant to sxction 11(h), shnee its rights are held againsy grials and thg Canadian government wouls not be conducting the trial.  The Coury went on to argue many pther rithts hnder sectmon 11 would also be itrelevcnt to extradutiok.  For example, sevtlon 11 guarajteex
" would breach fundamental justice. Background The a citizen named Susan Schmidt, who Gress his friend Paul had kidnapped a girl in Cleveland, Ohio. Schmidt claimed believe the girl was her granddaughter and that the girl's biological mother kept in a home ill suited for a child. Helen Schmidt then lived with girl two in York City before her arrest in 1982. She was charged with kidnapping (a federal offence in United States) and with child-stealing (an offence in That same year she acquitted of kidnapping, but she to before her trial She captured in Ontario was prepared to be extradited. While being charged for child-stealing after having been acquitted of kidnapping would violate the clause in Fifth to United States Constitution, states are not bound by this the extradition as a violation of double jeopardy under section of the Canadian Charter. Decision The decision was written by Justice Gerard La Forest. the Supreme Court found it had jurisdiction to review the case, it considered whether extradition from Charter law was Under extradition law, hearing Canada ascertain there was evidence of a crime that could be criminal in Canada as as in the other nation. It was argued that the should against double jeopardy, this was an essential in law. However, the hearing a and decided arguments double jeopardy are a that would be more suited a trial. The case to demonstrate that Canada should trust the receiving to carry out the trial. Moving on consider section 11(h) of the Charter, the Court considered the argument that crimes of child-stealing were too similar. The Court noted that the Canadian government's decisions extradition are bound by the Charter under section 32, actions a foreign are not. This relevant to section since its rights against trials the government conducting the trial. The Court went to many other rights under section would irrelevant to extradition. For example, section 11 guarantees
" would breach fundamental jusTice.

BackgrOund
THe dEfeNdAnt wAs a CAnadian citizen NAmed helen Susan Schmidt, who alOng wiTh HEr soN chArles gress anD HiS FRieNd paUl HIlDEbRand hAd kIdnappeD a young girL in clEveland, Ohio.  SCHmIdt claimed To bElieve the girL waS her grAnDdaUGhter And That tHe girl'S BiologIcal motheR kEPt her iN A home ilL SUiTed fOr a child.  Helen SchmIDt THen lived with thE girl fOr TWo YEArs In NEw York City BeFore hER arrest IN 1982.  SHE WAs cHArged with kidnApping (a fedeRAl oFfence In The uNited STates) AnD WitH child-stealIng (aN offence iN Ohio).  THAt same yEAr she waS acquiTteD of KidnAPpInG, buT sHE flED tO CaNAda Before heR sTaTe triAl coMMENCed.  SHe wAs caPtureD in Ontario and Was PrepARed To be eXtradIted.

whIle beIng chaRged fOr Child-stealing afTer hAving been AcqUiTteD oF kidnAPping wOulD noT violatE the douBLe jEoPARDy Clause in the Fifth AmEnDMEnT to the UnIted StATeS CONstitutiOn, As tHe stATEs are Not bOUnD by this aMendmeNT, SChMidt fouGhT the exTrAdiTioN as a vIOlatIon of dOuble jeoPardy RIghts under sectIOn 11(h) of the CanadIAn cHArTEr.

DeCisIon
The majorIty dECisiOn waS WrIttEN by JuStice geRArD la Forest.  After the SupReMe CourT founD it had jurisdiCtion to revIEW The case, iT conSIdERed whether extrAditiOn law aside FRom ChartEr law Was violaTed.  Under eXTRadition Law, A heAriNg iN cAnAda would ascerTAIn if ThEre was sUffIcient eVidEncE of A crImE that coulD be crimiNaL iN CAnAda As welL As in the oThEr nAtIon.  it was ARgued tHat thE extRaDiTIon Hearing SHoULD guaRd AgAinsT doUbLe jeoPardY, SinCe this wAs an essenTiaL RighT iN CAnadian Law.  However, the HeAring is not A tRiaL, and thE sUpreme CoUrt decided that arguments ABout douBle JeopaRdy aRe a defencE thAt woulD be MOre suiTed for A triaL.  THe cASE Re BuRLEy (1865) Was CiTed to demonSTRatE that caNada Should tRust the receiving coUNtrY to carry out thE trIal.

MOVInG on TO cONsiDeR SecTIOn 11(h) of the Charter, The Court coNsIDeRed the arguMEnt ThAt the crImes of kIdnapPIng and cHild-stealIng were toO sImilAR.  the court noted That whilE the CanadIAn govERnMent's DecIsions In ExtRaditIon are BOunD by thE ChartEr Under sEctioN 32, tHe actionS of a foreign government arE not.  ThIs was RelEvant to seCtiON 11(h), sInce its riGhts Are held agaInsT trIals aNd tHE CanaDian GOvErnMEnt woUld nOT be conducTInG thE TRiAl.  The Court wENT On tO arguE maNY other RighTs under section 11 wouLD also be irrelevAnt tO EXtrAdiTIon.  FOr Example, section 11 GuaRaNTEes
" would breach fundamental  justice.
Back gro und 
T he d efen dant was a Can a dian  citizen named Helen S usanSc h midt ,  w ho al ong wit h  h e r  so nCh arl es Gr ess a ndhis fri end Paul H ild eb rand had kid n ap ped a youn g g irl in Cleve lan d, Ohi o.   S c hmidt  cl aimed  to be l ieve t he girl w as her gr a nddaugh t e randthat the girl's b i ol o gical mother k ept he ri na hom e i ll suitedfo r a c h ild.  H e le n S chm i dt then lived  with the g i rlfor tw oyea r s in N ew Yo rk Cit y before he r ar rest in 1 982. S he wasc hargedwith k idn app ing( afe der al off e nc e i n  th e United  S ta tes)andw i t h  chi ld- stea ling(an offence i n O hio) .   T hat s ame y earsh e was  acqui ttedof  kidnapping, bu t sh e fled to  Ca na dabe foreh er sta tetri al comm enced.She  w a s ca ptured in Ontarioan d wa s prepar ed tob eex t radited. 
Whi le b e i ng ch arge d  f or child -steal i ng  a fter ha vi ng bee nacq uit ted o f  kid nappin g wouldnot v i olate the doub l e jeopardy cl a us e in theFif th Amendmen t to theUnit e dSta t es Co nstit ut i on ,  as the states areno t boun d bythis amendmen t, Schmidt f o ught the  ext r ad i tion as a viol ation  of double jeopardy  righ ts under  section1 1 (h) of t heCan adi anC h ar ter.

Decisio n Thema joritydec ision w aswri tte n b yJustice G erard La  F or es t.   A ftert he Supre me  Co ur t f oundi t hadjuris dict io nt o r eview t h ec a se,it  c onsi der ed  whet here xtr adition  law asid e f r om C ha rt er lawwas violated.  Under extr ad iti on law , a hearin g in Canada would ascer t ain ifthe re wa s su fficientevi denceofa  crime  thatcould  b e c r i minal i nCan ad a as wella s  in  theot hernation.   It was argued th a t t he extraditio n h eari n g  s hou l dg uar da gai n s t double jeopar dy, sinceth i swas an ess e nti al  rightin Cana dianl aw.  Ho wever, th e hearing  i s no t a t rial, andthe Supr eme Court decid e dthatarg uments  a bou t dou ble je o par dy ar e a de fe nce th at wo ul d be mor e suited for a trial. The ca se Re  Bu rley (186 5)w ascited todemo nstrate th atCan ada s hou l d tru st t h erec e iving  cou n try to ca r ry  ou t th e trial.

M o v i ngon to  co n sidersect ion 11(h) of theC harter, the Co urtc o nsi der e d th eargument thatthe  c r i mes of k id napping and  child-s te a lingwere t oo sim ilar. T h eC ourt n oted  th at whilethe  C a nadiango ve r nment' s de ci sionsin ext r adit i o n are bound by t he Ch a r ter u n der  sect io n 32, t h e ac tions of a  foreign go vernme nt a re no t.  Thi swas re lev an t to secti o n 11(h),since  its ri gh ts a reheld a gain s t  tria ls a nd  th e Canadia n go v er nm e ntwoul d not  b e co nductingt he trial . T he Cour twen t on toa rg u e  many othe r r ights u nder secti o n 11 wo u ld al so beirrele vant to ext ra dition.   F o r  example,  section1 1 g ua rant ees
" would_breach fundamental_justice.

Background
The defendant was a_Canadian citizen_named_Helen Susan_Schmidt,_who along with_her son Charles_Gress and his friend_Paul Hildebrand had_kidnapped_a young girl in Cleveland, Ohio.  Schmidt claimed to believe the girl was_her_granddaughter and_that_the_girl's biological mother kept her_in a home ill suited_for a_child.  Helen Schmidt then lived with the_girl_for two years_in New York City before her arrest in 1982._ She was charged with kidnapping_(a federal offence_in_the_United States) and with_child-stealing (an offence in Ohio). _That same year she was acquitted_of kidnapping, but she fled to Canada_before her state trial commenced. _She was captured in Ontario_and was_prepared to be extradited.

While being_charged for child-stealing_after having_been acquitted of_kidnapping would not violate the double_jeopardy clause in_the Fifth Amendment to the United_States_Constitution, as the_states_are_not bound_by this amendment,_Schmidt_fought the_extradition_as a violation of double jeopardy_rights_under section 11(h) of the Canadian Charter.

Decision
The_majority decision was written_by_Justice Gerard La Forest._ After the Supreme Court_found it had jurisdiction to review_the case,_it considered_whether extradition law aside from Charter law was violated.  Under_extradition law, a hearing in Canada_would ascertain if there_was sufficient_evidence_of a crime_that_could be_criminal in Canada as well as in_the other_nation.  It was argued that_the extradition hearing should_guard_against double jeopardy, since this was_an essential right in Canadian law._ However, the hearing is_not_a_trial, and the Supreme Court_decided that arguments about double jeopardy_are a defence_that would be more suited for a_trial._ The case Re Burley (1865)_was_cited to demonstrate that Canada should_trust_the_receiving country to carry out_the trial.

Moving on to consider section_11(h) of the Charter, the Court considered the argument_that the crimes_of kidnapping and child-stealing were_too_similar._ The Court noted that while the Canadian government's decisions_in extradition_are bound by_the Charter under section 32, the actions of a foreign_government are not.  This was relevant_to section 11(h), since its rights are held against trials and_the Canadian government would not be conducting the_trial.  The Court went on to_argue many other rights_under_section 11 would also be irrelevant to_extradition.__For_example, section 11_guarantees