Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of Canada

Gaudet v. Marchand

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because the lower courts correctly concluded there was no basis to grant habeas corpus or certiorari in aid in respect of the appellant's transfer to the special handling unit, and therefore no relief was warranted.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed

02

Material facts

Parties

Ghislain Gaudet

Appellant Counsel: Christian Desrosiers; Michel Marchand

Laval Marchand

Respondent Counsel: Richard Starck; Robert Marchi

Michel Deslauriers

Respondent Counsel: Richard Starck; Robert Marchi

Michel Gilbert

Respondent Counsel: Richard Starck; Robert Marchi

Irving Kulik

Respondent Counsel: Richard Starck; Robert Marchi

The Attorney General of Canada

Mis En Cause Counsel: Richard Starck; Robert Marchi

Amounts and remedies

  • Case Number: 24,156

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Habeas Corpus (prerogative Writs) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Quebec Court of Appeal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellant challenged his transfer to a special handling unit as unlawful and sought a writ of habeas corpus with certiorari in aid to secure his release or judicial review of the transfer.
Respondent
The respondents and the mis en cause contended the detention and transfer were lawful, that there was no basis for habeas corpus relief or certiorari in aid, and that the lower courts correctly dismissed the motion.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Common law / Supreme Court jurisprudence

    Habeas corpus is the summary remedy to challenge unlawful detention

  2. 02

    Supreme Court of Canada (this judgment)

    Appellate courts will not disturb findings where lower courts correctly applied law to the facts

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because the lower courts correctly concluded there was no basis to grant habeas corpus or certiorari in aid in respect of the appellant's transfer to the special handling unit, and therefore no relief was warranted.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed

  • Appeal dismissed

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court of Canada · 5 October 1994

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Supreme Court of Canada

Judgment· 5 October 1994

[1994] 3 SCR 514

Gaudet v. Marchand Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1994-10-05 Report [1994] 3 SCR 514 Case number 24156 Judges Lamer, Antonio; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley; Iacobucci, Frank On appeal from Quebec Subjects Prerogative writs Notes SCC Case Information: 24156 Decision Content Gaudet v. Marchand, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 514 Ghislain Gaudet Appellant v. Laval Marchand, Michel Deslauriers, Michel Gilbert and Irving Kulik Respondents ès qualités and The Attorney General of Canada Mis en cause Indexed as: Gaudet v. Marchand File No.: 24156. 1994: October 5. Present: Lamer C.J. and L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec Prerogative writs ‑‑ Habeas corpus ‑‑ Inmate transferred to special handling unit ‑‑ Motion for writ of habeas corpus dismissed. APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, J.E. 94‑857, R.J.P.Q. 94‑148, 23 W.C.B. (2d) 505, affirming a judgment of the Superior Court dismissing the appellant's motion for a writ of habeas corpus with certiorari in aid. Appeal dismissed. Christian Desrosiers and Michel Marchand, for the appellant. Richard Starck and Robert Marchi, for the respondents and the mis en cause. English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by //Lamer C.J.// Lamer C.J. ‑‑ We are all of the view, in agreement with Mr. Justice Rothman of the Court of Appeal of Quebec, to dismiss this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Desrosiers, Turcotte, Groulx, Latulippe & Marchand, Montréal. Solicitors for the respondents and the mis en cause: John C. Tait, Ottawa.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.