Latham v. Canada

Latham v. Canada

The Prothonotary lacked jurisdiction under Rule 50(1)(f) to strike the judicial review application because the motion related to the applicant's liberty; on de novo consideration by a judge the judicial review application was an abuse of process as it sought to relitigate issues already decided in prior habeas corpus proceedings, so the application was struck and dismissed, although the Court granted an extension of time to bring the appeal.

Citation
2020 FC 239
Parties
Applicant: Bryan Ralston Latham; Respondents: Her Majesty the Queen and the Attorney General of Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (appeal of Prothonotary Order) / Appeal of Prothonotary Order; Motion to Strike for Abuse of Process
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Prothonotary order set aside; respondents' motion to strike granted; application for judicial review struck without leave and dismissed; extension of time to file appeal granted.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Judicial Review, Habeas Corpus, Prothonotary Jurisdiction, Extension of Time
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Corrections / Parole Procedural Law Abuse of Process Judicial Review Habeas Corpus Prothonotary Jurisdiction Extension of Time

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bryan Ralston Latham

Applicant

Her Majesty the Queen and the Attorney General of Canada

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (appeal of Prothonotary Order) / Appeal of Prothonotary Order; Motion to Strike for Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Prothonotary has jurisdiction under Rule 50(1)(f) to hear a motion relating to the liberty of a person
  2. 2 Whether the judicial review application amounted to an abuse of process because the same issues had been litigated in a prior habeas corpus proceeding
  3. 3 Whether extension of time for appeal should be granted in light of the applicant's incarceration and limited access to resources

Ratio Decidendi

The Prothonotary lacked jurisdiction under Rule 50(1)(f) to strike the judicial review application because the motion related to the applicant's liberty; on de novo consideration by a judge the judicial review application was an abuse of process as it sought to relitigate issues already decided in prior habeas corpus proceedings, so the application was struck and dismissed, although the Court granted an extension of time to bring the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Prothonotary order set aside; respondents' motion to strike granted; application for judicial review struck without leave and dismissed; extension of time to file appeal granted.

Orders

  • Time extended for the Applicant to bring the appeal
  • Order of the Prothonotary dated April 8, 2019 (amended April 12, 2019) set aside