Lawyer accused in Ryan Wedding case to stay out on bail after court dismisses review

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Bluesky
• Share on X
• Copy Link

In a decision released Thursday, the Appeal Court agreed to admit the new evidence, including revised documents prepared by American authorities.

Water Conservation Measures

Stage 3 water restrictions in place

7h ago

Housing Market

Housing sales still low in the North Okanagan

8h ago

Level 4

Okanagan drought level declined, but conditions still dry

9h ago

However, the court dismissed the Crown’s application for review, finding no errors in Superior Court Justice Peter Bawden’s approach and decision.

Paradkar was one of several Canadians arrested for extradition to the United States last fall, part of a lengthy FBI effort to close in on one of its then-most wanted fugitives, the former Canadian athlete Ryan Wedding.

Wedding, a former Olympic snowboarder now accused of running an international drug empire, was taken into U.S. custody in January. He is alleged to have ordered the killings of several people, including a witness who could testify against him in a narcotics case.

Prosecutors allege Paradkar, a defence lawyer based in the Toronto suburb of Thornhill, advised Wedding on the killing of a federal witness and introduced the alleged kingpin to drug traffickers who moved product through North America.

It’s also alleged he directed intelligence gathering after the organization’s drugs were seized by law enforcement.

Just before Christmas, Bawden ruled to release Paradkar on bail, with conditions that include house arrest, GPS monitoring and a prohibition on the use of electronic devices unless supervised by one of his sureties.

Paradkar’s wife is his primary surety, and the couple has jointly pledged $5 million for his release.

Prosecutors argued in their application that Bawden didn’t properly scrutinize Paradkar’s wife in assessing her as a surety, nor did the judge consider the pair’s testimony about details of their assets not disclosed in affidavits.

The Crown further argued Bawden failed to grapple with the gap between the couple’s income and their lavish lifestyle, which court heard included expensive family vacations, the lease of multiple luxury cars and an insurance claim for a sizable collection of designer clothing and accessories.

In its ruling, the Appeal Court said both Paradkar and his wife were questioned about their income and assets and gave explanations for how they obtained them over the years.

“While it was suggested that their admitted sources of income and their lifestyle and assets did not ‘add up,’ this was far from an inevitable conclusion on the record,” the court said.

Regardless, the issue was not whether Paradkar had the money to go on the lam but rather “whether he had the incentive to do so,” the court wrote.

“Mr. Paradkar’s incentive to stay in Canada, and to comply with the terms of his bail and attend court, was, in the application judge’s words, a ‘compelling reason’ for finding that Mr. Paradkar had met his onus” regarding flight risk, it said.

As well, Bawden did assess the suitability of Paradkar’s wife as a surety, and the findings he made were available on the evidence, it wrote.

The Crown also argued Bawden relied on speculation in gauging whether Paradkar posed a flight risk. For example, they said, the judge concluded Paradkar would not have access to medical care for his diabetes and heart issues if he went on the run.

The Appeal Court agreed with Paradkar’s lawyers that, to the extent that Bawden could be said to have speculated, “he was responding to scenarios for flight that were themselves necessarily hypothetical: that Mr. Paradkar would seek refuge with a foreign drug cartel, use undisclosed resources to leave Canada for a foreign country, or ‘go underground’ in Canada.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 4, 2026.

Paola Loriggio, The Canadian Press