United States of America v. Oliynyk

2019 BCSC 277 United States of America v. Oliynyk IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: United States of America v. Oliynyk, 2019 BCSC 277 Date: 20190222 Docket: 27435 Registry: Vancouver In the Matter of the Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18 as amended and In the Matter of The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States of America Requesting State and David James Oliynyk aka Nick Oliynyk Person Sought Before: The Honourable Madam Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten Reasons for Judgment Application for Judicial Interim Release Counsel for the Respondent Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the Requesting State: S. Amanda Lord Counsel for the Person Sought: Jason B. Gratl Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. February 15, 2019 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. February 22, 2019 [1] These Reasons for Judgment were delivered as oral reasons. They have since been edited for publication. INTRODUCTION [2] The United States of America (USA) seeks to extradite David James Oliynyk for drug smuggling. The extradition request was submitted in January 2018. In April 2018, the federal Minister of Justice issued an Authority to Proceed under the Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18. On application, this Court issued an extradition warrant on April 17, 2018. [3] Should Mr. Oliynyk be convicted of the USA offences, he faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison, with a maximum sentence of life. [4] Mr. Oliynyk is in custody on the extradition warrant, awaiting a committal hearing. He applies for judicial interim release on a substantial surety bail with stringent terms. On behalf of the USA, the Attorney General of Canada (AGC) opposes Mr. Oliynyk's release. [5] Mr. Oliynyk is not the only person sought for extradition in this matter. Five other persons have also been charged in relation to the smuggling allegations. Four have been released on bail, two with the consent of the AGC. The extradition request for the fifth person is proceeding in Alberta and his bail status is unknown. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCES [6] According to the Record of the Case (ROC) certified on January 3, 2018, and Supplemental Record of the Case (SROC) certified on July 31, 2018, Homeland Security commenced an investigation into alleged cross-border smuggling involving Mr. Oliynyk in 2014. [7] The investigation involved the use of a "Confidential Witness". This person is said to have started assisting investigators after he was arrested in the USA for involvement in a conspiracy to move cocaine from California to Vancouver. In a debriefing interview, he told USA authorities that he had been smuggling drugs on instructions from someone named Cameron Wade Gustafson. This is Mr. Oliynyk's brother-in-law. The Confidential Witness said that shortly before his arrest, he met with Mr. Oliynyk at a gas station in Abbotsford and Mr. Oliynyk provided him with contact information for persons in the USA from whom the Confidential Witness was supposed to pick up drugs for transport into Canada. [8] With the knowledge of Homeland Security, the Confidential Witness subsequently conversed on a regular basis with Mr. Oliynyk and through that interaction, is said to have arranged a number of drug transactions. He appears to have commenced doing this as early as May 4, 2014. [9] I will not set out all of the alleged conversations with Mr. Oliynyk, or the entirety of the details surrounding the drug transactions. Suffice it to say, for the purpose of the judicial interim release application, they include: · the Confidential Witness is said to have been instructed by Mr. Oliynyk to pick up drugs that were brought into Washington for transport to Canada by two individuals later identified as Nikolai Terletsky and William Carruthers; · the plan was to pick up the drugs separately from each of these persons and deliver them to a third individual, identified as Gurpreet Sandhu; · based on information provided by the Confidential Witness, an undercover agent retrieved drugs from Mr. Terletsky on May 5, 2014. The drugs consisted of 6.027 kilograms of cocaine hydrochloride and approximately 1.1 grams of cocaine base; · the undercover agent met with Mr. Carruthers on May 6, 2014 and received 1.94 kilograms of heroin; · on May 26 and 27, 2014, the undercover agent communicated with Mr. Sandhu and arranged to deliver the cocaine and heroin retrieved from Mr. Terletsky and Mr. Carruthers. They met on May 27 and the agent provided Mr. Sandhu with "sham" drugs. Mr. Sandhu is said to have stowed the sham drugs in a secret compartment of his truck. He drove across the USA-Canada border. His truck was searched on the other side and the sham drugs were recovered; · in June 2014, it is alleged that Mr. Oliynyk arranged to have the Confidential Witness meet up with a person identified as Charles Pak, for the purpose of retrieving drugs for shipment into Canada. The Confidential Witness provided this information to USA authorities and Mr. Pak was stopped by Portland police on an Oregon highway. With consent, his vehicle was searched and police recovered approximately 20 kilograms of cocaine from the trunk. After Mr. Pak was arrested, Mr. Oliynyk is said to have contacted the Confidential Witness to tell him of that development; · it is alleged that in September 2014, Mr. Oliynyk directed the Confidential Witness to meet with two persons and retrieve drugs that were being transported to Washington. Based on this information, an undercover agent met with one of the individuals at Sea Tac airport and received nine kilograms of methamphetamine. He then met with a second individual in Whatcom County and obtained 14.9 kilograms of cocaine. Rather than have these drugs delivered to Mr. Oliynyk in Canada, investigators developed a ruse in which the Confidential Witness would tell Mr. Oliynyk that the drugs had been seized from their storage location under a warrant. The Confidential Witness passed this information to Mr. Oliynyk. It is said he demanded proof of the warrant and expressed concerns that he would be killed if the drugs were lost; · it is alleged that in October 2014, Mr. Oliynyk directed the Confidential Witness to pick up cocaine and $40,000 cash in California. The information was passed to USA authorities and an undercover agent arranged for the pick-up. Drugs and cash were left in a car. The agent retrieved 28 kilograms of cocaine and $40,000; · after this retrieval, the Confidential Witness arranged to have the cocaine delivered to Mr. Oliynyk in Vancouver. USA investigators and the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) collaboratively arranged a "dead drop" of sham narcotics. A female officer contacted Mr. Oliynyk, claiming to be the girlfriend of the Confidential Witness, and gave directions to pick up the drugs from a car parked in Vancouver. Mr. Oliynyk arrived in a truck driven by Wayne Hollaus, one of the other persons sought for extradition. After the sham drugs were retrieved, the truck was stopped and both Mr. Oliynyk and Mr. Hollaus were arrested. The sham drugs were recovered. [10] According to the ROC, Mr. Oliynyk was in Canada during the entirety of the investigation. The Confidential Witness initially interacted with Mr. Oliynyk in Canada, but after May 14, 2014, he remained in the United States. Most of the phone calls between Mr. Oliynyk and the Confidential Witness subsequent to May 14 were recorded and have been preserved. No calls or messages between the two men in Canada were recorded. [11] In addition to the specific transactions, outlined above, the Confidential Witness is expected to testify that starting around May 14, he began talking with Mr. Oliynyk about acquiring an aircraft to use in flying drugs across the USA-Canada border. Ultimately, a plane is said to have been obtained from Mr. Oliynyk's father-in-law, Wayne Fearnside. [12] In early June 2014, Mr. Oliynyk arranged for the Confidential Witness to receive the plane. It arrived at the Bellingham International Airport on June 5. Investigators say it was delivered by Wayne Fearnside. He handed the keys to the Confidential Witness. The Confidential Witness called Mr. Oliynyk to let him know the plane had arrived. It is said that later that same day, Mr. Oliynyk confirmed he had picked up his father-in-law north of the USA-Canada border. [13] The ROC and SROC state that the Confidential Witness also had conversations with Mr. Oliynyk about transferring funds from Canada to the USA for use during the smuggling operation. The Confidential Witness provided information for an account under the name of a friend, including an account number, routing number and other information necessary to allow for a wire transfer. In June 2014, he received confirmation that $3,600 US had been wired to the account. [14] USA investigators say they conducted interviews with Mr. Oliynyk in December 2014 and January 2015 while he was incarcerated in Canada. He is said to have waived his Miranda warnings and admitted to coordinating the distribution of cocaine and heroin with the Confidential Witness. [15] Officers with the VPD also interviewed Mr. Oliynyk following his arrest in October 2014. During the interview, he provided a cell phone number said to match a number used in a recorded call between the Confidential Witness and a person said to be Mr. Oliynyk. [16] An audio and video recording of the interview with the VPD officers was put before me. At the start of the interview, Mr. Oliynyk is provided with his right to counsel, as well as a secondary warning. He does not request an opportunity to speak with a lawyer, indicating that he has already spoken to one and was told to not say anything. PERSONAL BACKGROUND [17] I am told that Mr. Oliynyk was formerly a member of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, but is no longer affiliated with that organization. [18] In 1986, Mr. Oliynyk was convicted of possession of a narcotic, for which he received a $750 fine. [19] In 1990, he was convicted in the USA of possession of 13 kilograms of cocaine with intent to distribute and received a minimum sentence of 10 years in prison. He transferred his USA sentence to Canada and served it here. The warrant on the USA offences expired in 1999: R. v. Oliynyk, Lepage and Ferris, 2006 BCSC 572 at para. 47. [20] In 2006, he was sentenced in Canada to 18 years in prison for one count of conspiracy to import cocaine and one count of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. These offences occurred five years earlier, in 2001. This was two years after warrant expiry on the 10-year sentence imposed in 1990. [21] At his 2006 sentencing, Mr. Oliynyk was found to be the person "primarily in charge" of the 2001 scheme, described by MacKenzie J. as a "reasonably sophisticated" operation. It involved 32 kilograms of cocaine, with a "potential profit" if sold in British Columbia of between $832,000 to $1.8 million. The sentencing Judge found that the persons involved, including Mr. Oliynyk, were not "naïve novices in the drug trade". Moreover, they were motivated by profit: 2006 BCSC 572. [22] In 2008, Mr. Oliynyk was released on unescorted temporary absences from the custodial facility in which he was housed. This allowed him to work outside Mission Minimum Institution and spend time with his family on a farm in Langley. He worked with horses and programming for autistic children. [23] In 2011, he was granted day parole by the federal Parole Board and lived in a private home placement in Abbotsford for two years. In August 2013, he was granted full parole and lived with his family on a farm in Aldergrove. [24] When Mr. Oliynyk was arrested by VPD in October 2014, his parole was revoked. Among other things, he was subject to conditions that he avoid persons with criminal associations. He was with Wayne Hollaus, who has a record for production of a controlled substance. In his interview with VPD, Mr. Oliynyk said he had known Mr. Hollaus for 20 years. Mr. Oliynyk was also prohibited on parole from having more than one mobile device. The ROC states that two phones were found on his person, although Mr. Oliynyk says it was only one. [25] Mr. Oliynyk applied for reinstatement of his parole from 2014-2017, but it was denied. [26] I am told that the Parole Board did reinstate day parole in April 2018, with knowledge of the USA matters. However, there was difficulty in finding him a suitable halfway house (he says this is attributable to interference by USA and Canadian authorities), and it was not until September 2018 that he was told he had been accepted into the Chilliwack Community Correctional Centre. [27] As noted, Mr. Oliynyk is currently in custody on the extradition warrant. Because of this, his day parole has not been implemented. He seeks bail on the extradition file, which would allow him to access day parole and move into the Chilliwack halfway house, with the goal of ultimately transitioning to live with his family at their residence in Abbotsford. [28] He proposes that like other of the named persons on the extradition file, he be released on a substantial surety bail, with his common-law spouse, daughter and son-in-law acting as sureties. Collectively, they are prepared to pledge the equity in their Abbotsford home (between $400,000 and $500,000). In unsworn letters before me, they have committed to acting responsibly as sureties and contacting the authorities if they have reason to believe that Mr. Oliynyk has failed to comply with the terms of his bail. [29] At the time of the 2001 offences, which led to Mr. Oliynyk's 18-year prison sentence, he was living with his common-law spouse and daughter in Langley: 2006 BCSC 572 at para. 45. However, he was released on bail for those offences, complied with the conditions of his recognizance and surrendered himself to court for sentencing. [30] At the time of the 2014 USA offences, Mr. Oliynyk was also living with his common-law spouse. [31] Apart from the USA allegations, there is no information before me of non-compliance with specific terms of Mr. Oliynyk's unescorted absences, or conditions of his day or full parole, between 2008 and his arrest in October 2014. LEGAL FRAMEWORK [32] Under s. 19 of the Extradition Act, judicial interim release in the extradition context is governed by Part XVI of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. [33] As such, s. 515(10) of the Code is engaged and Mr. Oliynyk's detention in custody while awaiting a committal hearing must be justified on primary, secondary or tertiary grounds. [34] Mr. Oliynyk is charged with offences that, in Canada, would constitute trafficking in a controlled substance contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19. He accepts that because of s. 515(6)(d) of the Code, he is in a reverse onus position on judicial interim release. PARTIES' POSITIONS [35] Mr. Oliynyk acknowledges that the offences alleged by the USA are serious and he is said to have played a key organizing role in their commission. [36] However, he denies that he poses any sort of flight risk. His family lives in Abbotsford, including his common-law spouse. He says he had good employment prospects and, while subject to unescorted absences, day and full parole between 2008 and his arrest in October 2014, he was actively employed, including working with autistic children. [37] He is willing to be subject to stringent terms of release, including bail supervision; a residency requirement; curfew; limited access to mobile devices; state monitoring of his call records; and electronic monitoring. If granted bail, it would run parallel to his day parole, assuming day parole is reinstated, and Mr. Oliynyk would likely be required to reside at the Chilliwack Community Correctional Centre before transitioning elsewhere. He would also be subject to any other conditions imposed on day parole. Mr. Oliynyk has never resided outside of Canada and has no history of failing to attend court. [38] On the secondary and tertiary grounds, Mr. Oliynyk says he presents a low risk to offend. He says in the spring 2018, the federal Parole Board determined that he was again suitable for day parole, notwithstanding the USA allegations. This determination is said to have been reached "after a searching analysis by the Parole Board of his character, motivation and propensity for recidivism, including consideration of standardized actuarial assessments of his probability of reoffending while on parole". [39] Mr. Oliynyk intends on challenging the admissibility of evidence gathered against him on Canadian soil and seek its exclusion from consideration on the committal hearing. This includes the vehicle search that led to his arrest in October 2014 and a potential breach of the right to counsel before the statements he provided to USA authorities while incarcerated in Canada. [40] The Requesting State argues that Mr. Oliynyk's detention is justified on all three grounds, but places particular emphasis on the secondary and tertiary grounds. In light of the reverse onus, to obtain his release, Mr. Oliynyk must show that his detention is not justified having regard to these same grounds. [41] The AGC concedes it has no evidence of Mr. Oliynyk previously failing to attend court when required. However, it argues this does not mean there are no primary ground concerns. The AGC reminds the Court that within the extradition context, the Court must take a more stringent approach to the assessment of primary ground concerns than might otherwise be the case in domestic proceedings: the courts in this Country have long recognized that a correct approach to extradition proceedings is characterized by good faith in honouring Canada's international obligations adherence to that principle requires a court considering a bail application to limit the assumption of risk of non-appearance more severely than might otherwise be acceptable in the case of domestic proceedings. United States v. Ross, 1993 CarswellBC 2753 (C.A.) at para. 15. [Emphasis added. Internal references omitted.] [42] It is the AGC's position that given the lengthy term of imprisonment if convicted of these offences, Mr. Oliynyk has a clear incentive to flee the jurisdiction and avoid extradition. He also has a demonstrated history of involvement in high-level drug trafficking. The ROC and SROC say this involvement includes a large network of contacts within the trafficking milieu that could provide Mr. Oliynyk with assistance in relatively short order, including considerable sums of money (one of the alleged transactions includes arranging to pick up $40,000 in cash), transportation resources and the capacity to move funds from Canada to another jurisdiction. [43] On the secondary ground, the AGC argues there is a substantial likelihood that Mr. Oliynyk will re-offend if released and the public needs to be protected. [44] This is now the third set of trafficking allegations against Mr. Oliynyk. Notwithstanding the 10- and 18-year prison terms, he is alleged to have once again been involved in a large-scale, sophisticated scheme to smuggle approximately 69 kilograms of cocaine, 1.9 kilograms of heroin and 9 kilograms of methamphetamine into Canada. [45] On its face, the material before the Court claims that Mr. Oliynyk was not only a directing mind behind these transactions, facilitating the intended shipments, but that they formed part of a larger plan to arrange for multiple loads of drugs back and forth between the USA and Canada. Like the offences for which he was sentenced in 2006, the new allegations are said to have been motivated by a desire for profit and, importantly, he was on parole when they were committed. A high level of organization was brought to bear, with the use of "coded" language, multiple phones and other conduct intentionally designed to avoid detection. The AGC says the new offences are consistent with, and simply a continuation of, his long-standing propensity for drug trafficking. In the words of counsel for the AGC, "He just can't seem to stop". [46] Finally, under the tertiary ground, it is the AGC's position that in light of the circumstances, as a whole, the public will lose confidence in the administration of justice if Mr. Oliynyk is released. There is "abundant evidence" in the ROC and SROC from which it can be inferred that Mr. Oliynyk trafficked in a large quantity of drugs while on parole. These are serious offences and Mr. Oliynyk is alleged to have been a "key player" in the operation. He faces lengthy imprisonment in the USA if convicted and he has a demonstrated history of similar offending, for which he has received significant prison sentences. From the AGC's perspective, this does not appear to have deterred Mr. Oliynyk from re-engaging with drug trafficking and the Court cannot be assured that if released, he will restrain from criminal activity. [47] Counsel for the AGC does not doubt the sincerity of Mr. Oliynyk's family in their commitment to support him in the community and monitor his behaviour. However, it is suggested they do not have an actual capacity to do so. The AGC also expresses concern over the fact that at least one member of Mr. Oliynyk's family, his father-in-law, appears to have been directly involved in the scheme by delivering a plane to the Confidential Witness. ANALYSIS [48] In R. v. Pearson, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 665, at para. 62, the Supreme Court accepted the proposition that persons charged with serious narcotics offences "pose a significant risk that they will abscond rather than face trial". This is because, at least in part, "[d]rug importers and traffickers have access both to a large amount of funds and to sophisticated organizations which can assist in a flight from justice": at para. 62. [49] Notwithstanding this proposition, I am satisfied that on the material before me, Mr. Oliynyk has shown that his continued detention in custody on the extradition warrant is not necessary to ensure he appears in court. I make this finding alive to the fact that within the extradition context, Canadian courts generally take a more severe approach to the primary ground under s. 515(10) of the Code in order to "limit the assumption of the risk of non-appearance": Ross at para. 15. [50] Mr. Oliynyk is 68 years old. He has strong family ties in British Columbia. His common-law wife, daughter, and son-in-law live in the Lower Mainland, own property here, and it is clear that he is closely bonded with his family and desirous of being a part of their lives. He has two grandchildren with whom he wants to spend time. [51] There is no evidence that Mr. Oliynyk has substantial ties to other jurisdictions or assets situated there. There is no evidence that he has travelled outside of Canada since his 2006 sentence and, as I understand it, he does not have a passport. [52] Mr. Oliynyk has no demonstrated history of failing to attend court when required to do so. When previously subject to unescorted temporary absences from prison, day parole and full parole between 2008 and October 2014, there is no indication that he attempted to leave the jurisdiction. When on judicial interim release awaiting the imposition of a lengthy prison term for his 2001 offences, he surrendered himself as required. When serving his sentence for the 1990 offence(s) committed in the USA, he applied to have his sentence served in Canada. He has long demonstrated a connection to this jurisdiction. [53] Given the absence of prior flight, I am satisfied that a substantial surety bail with stringent conditions including regular in-person reporting to a supervisor, supervised residency at an approved halfway house, a curfew, curfew checks by police where necessary, and a prohibition on leaving the Lower Mainland would satisfy the primary ground in this case. [54] However, I do have secondary ground concerns. On the material before me, I am satisfied there is a substantial likelihood that if released from custody, Mr. Oliynyk will commit one or more serious criminal offences. Moreover, as required by R. v. Bhullar, 2005 BCCA 409, I am satisfied this substantial likelihood of re-offending would endanger the public. [55] My secondary ground concerns arise in light of Mr. Oliynyk's prior convictions for drug-related activity, including the 2001 offences in which he was found to have been "in charge" of an "importation scheme" involving 32 kilograms of cocaine, with an "intent or general plan" to bring "further quantities" into Canada: 2006 BCSC 572 at para. 8. [56] As noted, he was on parole for those convictions and subject to conditions at the time of the allegations that form the basis for the extradition request. The phone calls with the Confidential Witness, as described in the ROC and SROC, involved many discussions about the amount of money available by moving drugs across the USA-Canada border. [57] In R. v. Pearson, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the potential for profit creates "huge incentives for an offender to continue criminal behaviour even after arrest and release on bail": at para. 61. In my view, Mr. Oliynyk's criminal history, commencing with the 1990 convictions that attracted a 10-year sentence, bears this out. [58] Within two years of warrant expiry on the 1990 sentence, he was engaged in a conspiracy to import and traffic in cocaine. The sentencing Judge on the 2001 offences found that Mr. Oliynyk was "undeterred by [his] previous sentence of ten years": 2006 BCSC 572 at para. 96. [59] He received an 18-year sentence for those offences and was released on full parole in the fall 2013. The ROC alleges that by May 2014, he was providing instructions to the Confidential Witness on where to pick up drugs in the USA and discussing the purchase of an aircraft to facilitate large shipments across the USA-Canada border. In October 2014, when stopped by VPD after picking up a "sham" delivery, he is said to have been in breach of his parole conditions. [60] Because of his criminal history, the fact that he was on parole at the time of the new alleged offences, and the leadership role he is said to have played in the 2014 transactions, Mr. Oliynyk is in a qualitatively different position than Mr. Hollaus, who is also sought for extradition and has been granted bail. See United States v. Hollaus, 2018 BCSC 1951. According to the ruling on Mr. Hollaus's bail application, he has only one prior conviction for a drug offence (production of marihuana). That conviction was entered 16 years ago, in 2003, and Mr. Hollaus received a conditional sentence. His sentence had long expired before the 2014 allegations. [61] As apparent from cases such as United States v. Martin, 2012 BCSC 2214, an allegation of re-offending while subject to state supervision in respect of another matter can be a significant factor for consideration in the bail analysis. In the circumstances of this particular case, I find that it is. [62] Mr. Oliynyk's family members say they are prepared to act as sureties. As explained in R. v. Cheung, 2016 BCCA 221 at para. 83: "The purpose of the surety for the secondary ground is to monitor the accused's conduct in the community". [63] Although I appreciate there is no evidence that Mr. Oliynyk's common-law spouse, daughter and son-in-law have been involved in criminal activity, I am not satisfied they have the capacity to adequately monitor or supervise Mr. Oliynyk's activity, even with a pledge of substantial equity in their property. There is no indication, from their letters, that they know the full extent of the details alleged against Mr. Oliynyk, or how it is that they expect to supervise his behaviour. [64] The material supplied by the Requesting State in support of extradition indicates that Mr. Oliynyk's father-in-law was involved in the 2014 scheme. There is also an indication that his brother-in-law is involved in drug importation. Mr. Oliynyk was living with his common-law spouse during the 2001 offences. He was also living with her during the events that form the basis of the extradition request. The USA alleges that Mr. Oliynyk directed the 2014 scheme by telephone, text messaging, and networking with potential purchasers, drug couriers and the Confidential Witness, using multiple phones, coded language and practices specifically designed to deceive and avoid detection. He is alleged to have led a sophisticated, multi-faceted and covert operation. He is said to have been meeting with a parole officer while these offences unfolded, at one time using the fact of a meeting as a reason why he was not available to take a call from the Confidential Witness. In light of Mr. Oliynyk's alleged modus operandi, I have no confidence that his family members, as sureties, will reasonably be in a position to detect and intervene by reaching out to the authorities. [65] At the bail hearing, Mr. Oliynyk offered to be subject to corrections-imposed electronic monitoring as part of any release order. No information is before me on whether electronic monitoring is actually available for use on bail within the extradition context or, if it is, whether some sort of suitability report is required before its imposition. In the absence of this information, I am not able to give this form of release serious consideration. In any event, electronic monitoring would monitor Mr. Oliynyk's physical whereabouts, not the nature of his activity. [66] Mr. Oliynyk points to the Parole Board's decision to grant him day parole in April 2018 as an indication that he does not present a risk to re-offend. He says this decision was made with full knowledge of his arrest in October 2014 and after a "searching analysis of his character, motivation and propensity for recidivism". A copy of the Parole Board's determination is not before me. As such, I do not know what the Board took into account in making its decision, the extent of its awareness of the USA allegations and the particulars of Mr. Oliynyk's alleged involvement, or the terms it considered appropriate to govern Mr. Oliynyk's release. I note that the SROC, which fleshes out the USA allegations, was not certified until July 2018, two months after the decision to grant (or reinstate) day parole. [67] Mr. Oliynyk says that before day parole is implemented, he must undergo a further assessment by the Parole Board. Presumably this is because of the amount of time that has passed since April 2018. He says the Chilliwack Community Correctional Centre is prepared to accept him as a resident, but I have no formal confirmation that such is the case and, more importantly, I assume this will depend on the Parole Board's next assessment. I do have a letter before me indicating that the "Better Life Integration & Support Society" is prepared to assist in Mr. Oliynyk's "reintegration", but its services appear to consist largely of mentoring and support. [68] I also have tertiary ground concerns with respect to Mr. Oliynyk. [69] Section 515(10)(c) of the Code authorizes a detention order when detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. In making this assessment, the Court must consider the apparent strength of the prosecution's case; the gravity of the charged offences; the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence; and the potential for a lengthy term of imprisonment. [70] The question to ask under this provision is whether a reasonable member of the public, properly informed of the philosophy underlying bail, Charter values and the actual circumstances of the case, would expect the detainee to remain in custody: R. v. St-Cloud, 2015 SCC 27 at para. 167. Relevant Charter "values" include, of course, the presumption of innocence and the right to not be denied bail without just cause. Mr. Oliynyk is constitutionally entitled to these guarantees and in assessing whether he has met his onus on the bail application, the Court must not lose sight of them. [71] Mr. Oliynyk argues that the Requesting State's case against him is not strong. He says there are inconsistencies between the ROC and SROC that cast doubt on the overall reliability of the information contained therein. He also intends to challenge the admissibility of evidence gathered against him in Canada and, if successful, he will apply under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude material evidence from the Court's consideration at the committal hearing. [72] It is not disputed that Charter remedies are available within the extradition context, including the exclusion of evidence shown to be gathered on Canadian soil in contravention of a constitutional guarantee: M.M. v. United States of America, 2015 SCC 62 at para. 40; United States of America v. Anekwu, 2009 SCC 41 at para. 29. [73] It is also possible at a committal hearing to argue that the evidence relied upon by the Requesting State is "so defective or appears so unreliable that the judge concludes it would be dangerous or unsafe to convict": M.M. at para. 40; United States of America v. Doak, 2015 BCCA 145 at paras. 37-39. A finding to this effect can render the case insufficient for committal, although the jurisprudence holds that these cases will be rare: M.M. at paras. 40 and 85. [74] Finally, a person sought for extradition can bring applications specific to the extradition process itself (as opposed to a "defence" properly advanced at trial), and seek a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter: Doak at para. 51. [75] Mr. Oliynyk may have arguments to make under these avenues of challenge. However, in light of the presumption of reliability that attaches to the ROC and SROC; the onus borne by Mr. Oliynyk in showing one or more Charter breaches (Anekwu at para. 29); and the limited role of an extradition judge on a committal hearing (M.M. at para. 2), I am not prepared to hold for the purpose of a tertiary ground analysis that the case put forward by the Requesting State is weak. In my view, to do so would require that I engage in a weighing of the evidence and make credibility findings, even if only on a limited basis, that are not appropriate at this stage of the process. [76] The overall reliability of the ROC and SROC are matters to be determined at the committal hearing. I note for present purposes that even if Mr. Oliynyk is successful in excluding the evidence obtained from the October 2014 "dead drop" in Vancouver, and his statements to USA authorities while incarcerated in Canada, the ROC and SROC contain other evidence alleging his active involvement with the Confidential Witness in arranging for drug pick-ups and delivery, including recorded telephone calls and text messaging. [77] Mr. Oliynyk is charged with grave offences. The 18-year sentence he received in 2006 for similar circumstances speaks volumes about how these offences are perceived by the courts, and their seriousness. Mr. Oliynyk is alleged to have once again played a lead role in a large-scale, sophisticated scheme involving multiple drug transactions. The amount of drugs involved is greater than the volume at issue in his 2001 offences. He is alleged to have been motivated by profit and to have evinced an intention to carry on with smuggling into the future, arranging for shipments to and from Canada. He is said to have done all of this while on parole for the offences of conspiracy to import and traffic. I have found there is a substantial likelihood that if released, Mr. Oliynyk will commit one or more serious offences that endanger the public. If extradited to the USA and convicted, he faces a minimum 10 years' imprisonment. The U.S. Department of Justice has said the fact that he was on parole at the time of the offences is likely to be considered an aggravating factor at any sentencing. [78] In the whole of these circumstances, it is my view that confidence in the justice system would be undermined if Mr. Oliynyk is not detained while awaiting a determination on committal. I note that the application of s. 515(10)(c) of the Code is not limited to exceptional circumstances or "the most heinous of crimes": R. v. St-Cloud at para. 5. [79] I appreciate that in April 2018, the Parole Board made a decision to grant Mr. Oliynyk day parole, notwithstanding his arrest by VPD in October 2014 and, as I understand it, an awareness of the larger USA investigation. However, the fact of this decision by a state authority does not change my perspective on the application of s. 515(10)(c) of the Code. As noted, I do not know what the Parole Board took into account in reaching that decision. I understand that an assessment will once again have to occur before the implementation of any parole, and I do not know what the result will be. In any event, I am satisfied on the entirety of the evidence I have reviewed, that within the extradition context, a reasonable and properly informed member of the public would expect Mr. Oliynyk to remain in custody while awaiting a committal hearing. [80] Accordingly, Mr. Oliynyk has not discharged his s. 515(6)(d) onus by showing that his continued detention is not necessary on the secondary and tertiary grounds. DISPOSITION [81] For the reasons provided, the application for judicial interim release is denied. [82] I order Mr. Oliynyk detained on the extradition warrant while awaiting a committal hearing. "DeWitt-Van Oosten J."