The case involved Frank Santo Cotroni, a Canadian citizen who was accused of planning to sell heroin in the United States.
Cotroni resisted the extradition on the grounds that it was in violation of section 6(1) of the Charter, which grants Canadian citizens the right to stay in Canada.
The second respondent in the case was Samir El Zein, also a Canadian citizen, who gave heroin to two people in Canada who were then caught trying to cross the border with it.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that section 6(1) should be interpreted in the way it was meant, to guard against arbitrary exile and not extradition, which may not be a permanent removal and does not terminate Canadian citizenship.
It was noted the wording of section 6(1) was vague and, if given a straightforward reading, could be interpreted to provide rights against extradition, not just arbitrary banishment.
Past Canadian case law, like Re Federal Republic of Germany and Rauca and obiter dicta in Canada v. Schmidt (1987) also indicated extradition was a violation but still a justified limit on section 6.
El Zein's legal representation argued Canadian citizens should be held in Canada and that their trials should occur there.
Extradition was therefore rational since "It is often better that a crime be prosecuted where its harmful impact is felt and where the witnesses and the persons most interested in bringing the criminal to justice reside."