OK looks like the G&M article I cited was missing some details:
http://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-...aspx?id=101323
Article 2
-Persons shall be delivered up according to the provisions of this Treaty for any of the offenses listed in the Schedule annexed to this Treaty, which is an integral part of this Treaty, provided these offenses are punishable by the laws of both Contracting Parties by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year.
-Extradition shall also be granted for attempts to commit, or conspiracy to commit or being a party to any of the offenses listed in the annexed Schedule.
-Extradition shall also be granted for any offense against a federal law of the United States in which one of the offenses listed in the annexed Schedule, or made extraditable by paragraph (2) of this Article, is a substantial element, even if transporting, transportation, the use of the mails or interstate facilities are also elements of the specific offense.
Also - the Canadian extradition methods are very loose.
Thus - she DOES have a chance of being extradited - even with the BS American claims. Her fucking (criminal) powerpoint was done through an interpretor.Simply put, if the US wants to have you extradited, they need only file an intent to prosecute you. Meanwhile in Canada, you can't challenge the extradition on the grounds that the prosecution is unlikely to result in a conviction. The legal arguments by the US prosecutor could be utterly without merit, yet Canada will still surrender you to extradition. This is what happened in the case of a Canadian citizen who was subject to an extradition request by France. The Canadian judge said point blank that the evidence presented was highly suspect, and that he saw no likelihood that it could lead to a conviction. However, under Canada's Extradition Act he had no choice but to order the Canadian citizen to be extradited, as the Minister requested. That Canadian citizen spent over three years in a French prison WITHOUT CHARGES EVEN BEING LAID.