Mr Soba applied for an order staying the extradition proceeding. He argued that his rights under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were infringed since the Republic of Slovenia had deliberately put forward statements about available evidence which it knew to be false and thereby abused the process of the court.

The Court immediately dismissed the infringement of rights but examined whether there was an abuse of process by deliberately presenting false evidence.

The accused argued that the original record was mistaken by attributing Tomaz Kralj's testimony to Tomaz Logar. Both were employees of the company LINK 2000, which was alleged to have been used to facilitate the kickbacks. However, Tomaz Logar did not testify at court. The Court found that, given the fact that both individuals have the same name, this mistake could not be qualified as deliberate lie. The Court further pointed out that regardless of the identity of the witness, there still exists evidence from a LINK 2000 employee.

Additional statements by the accused on false evidence could not be supported and were dismissed by the court.

Mr Soba further argued that the evidence misstated the position of “Helsinki monitor”, a civil initiative of which the accused is a participant, by stating that “it dropped all the charges against the criminal procedure”. Mr Soba pointed out that this was not the case and that instead the initiative filed approx. 50 penal denunciations against state prosecutors and judges of the case, which have not been dealt with but dropped by the prosecutors without an explanation. The accused, hence, alleged a violation of the right to a fair trial by an independent court under Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. With regards to the false statement, the issue was addressed in the supplement record of the case of 20 October 2008. It was acknowledged that the statement was a mistranslation and that it should have stated that the initiative “abstained from filing any further opinions- statements”. With regards to the question whether dropping the objections raised by Helsinki monitor constitutes a violation of the right to a fair trial, the Court found that it “is not the province of the extradition judge on a committal hearing to determine whether there has been trial fairness in prior proceedings in the extradition partner country”. The Court further held that “the existence of continued objection by a civil organization in the extradition partner's process does not inhibit this court from making an order of committal if the available evidence warrants it”.

The Court finally concluded that while Mr Soba had isolated two details in the case record that were false, it was not convinced that the extradition partner has deliberately lied about the evidence. The Court further noted that it does not follow from two errors that the record is generally unreliable and that the errors do not constitute a basis for denial of an order of committal and that they are insufficient to support an application for a stay of extradition proceedings.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for a stay and allowed the application for a committal order.

Mr Soba submitted that the committal order ought to be set aside because the extradition judge erred in her appreciation of the discrepancies in the record of the case. He relied on the decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court in Tarantino. The Court dismissed the appeal and noted that this case differs from Tarantino in that the discrepancies in this case were only minor and corrected in the supplementary record of the case. The Court held that these minor discrepancies did not taint the remaining evidence in the record.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice’s decision to extradite him to the Republic of Slovenia dated 16 July 2009 on two grounds.

1. The first was that the Minister denied the applicant natural justice by rejecting supporting submissions of the ‘Helsinki Monitor Organization’. The Minister did so on the ground that he doubted the institution’s legitimacy and on the ground of its association with the applicant. No notice of these grounds was given to the applicant ahead of time and therefore he had no opportunity to respond to them.

2. The second ground was on the basis that the court failed to take into account that the Supreme Court of Canada in Németh, which came out after the Minister’s decision, broadened the interpretation of s. 44(1)(b) of the Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18, to require a consideration of the mere risk of persecution, as opposed to requiring proof of persecution on a balance of probabilities.

The Court would not give effect to the first ground of judicial review for the following two reasons. First, the accused, in his several submissions to the Minister, did not disclose or explain his association with the Helsinki Monitor Organization in order to alter the Minister of the issue. Second, the applicant could have asked the Minister for a reconsideration of the case based on this issue but did not do so.

Regarding the second ground, the Court held that Németh case only changed the way the law applies to certified convention refugees and not refugee applicants. The Court also pointed out that the Minister consulted the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, which found that the judicial system in Slovenia was a fair one and that there was no suggestion of any concern of the potential for persecution

Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The accused applied for leave to appeal. The application was dismissed (without reason).