What is the legal test for establishing equivalence between crimes under Canadian law and those in the law of another state?

There are a number of ways to ensure that there is an equivalence between crimes under Canadian law and crimes provided for in the law of another state. In Hill v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1987), 73 N.R. 315, 1 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1 (F.C.A.), Mr. Justice Urie described three methods used to establish equivalence that appear to me to be applicable in this case: . . . first, by a comparison of the precise wording in each statute both through documents and, if available, through the evidence of an expert or experts in the foreign law and determining therefrom the essential ingredients of the respective offences; two, by examining the evidence adduced before the adjudicator, both oral and documentary, to ascertain whether or not that evidence was sufficient to establish that the essential ingredients of the offence in Canada had been proven in the foreign proceedings, whether precisely described in the initiating documents or in the statutory provisions in the same words or not; and three, by a combination of one and two.