Kahnapace v. Canada (Attorney General)
The appeal was dismissed as moot because, although the statutory question and the consistency of Policy 107 with s.4(d) of the CCRA raise important issues, the record on appeal did not permit a fair resolution and it was not reasonable to expend judicial resources on the matter under the Borowski principles.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2010 FCA 281
- Parties
- Appellant: Martha Kahnapace; Respondent: Attorney General of Canada
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 21 October 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal / Final Judgment Dismissed for Mootness
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed for mootness
- Legal Topics
- Policy 107, Corrections and Conditional Release Act S.4(d), Mootness, Judicial Economy, Borowski Test
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Martha Kahnapace
Appellant
Attorney General of Canada
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal / Final Judgment Dismissed for Mootness
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Policy 107 is inconsistent with paragraph 4(d) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act
- 2 Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to hear a moot appeal under the Borowski principles
- 3 Whether the record on appeal permits a fair resolution of the statutory inconsistency issue
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed as moot because, although the statutory question and the consistency of Policy 107 with s.4(d) of the CCRA raise important issues, the record on appeal did not permit a fair resolution and it was not reasonable to expend judicial resources on the matter under the Borowski principles.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed for mootness
Orders
- Appeal dismissed for mootness.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Kahnapace v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2010-10-21 Neutral citation 2010 FCA 281 File numbers A-524-09 Decision Content Date: 20101021 Docket: A-524-09 Citation: 2010 FCA 281 CORAM: NOËL J.A. SHARLOW J.A. LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.A. BETWEEN: MARTHA KAHNAPACE Appellant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on October 21, 2010. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on October 21, 2010. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL J.A. Date: 20101021 Docket: A-524-09 Citation: 2010 FCA 281 CORAM: NOËL J.A. SHARLOW J.A. LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.A. BETWEEN: MARTHA KAHNAPACE Appellant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on October 21, 2010) NOËL J.A. [1] Having considered the submissions of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is moot. [2] We have considered whether it should be heard despite its mootness, having regard to the principles in Borowski (Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General) [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342). [3] At the heart of this appeal is a debate about whether Policy 107 is fundamentally inconsistent with the statutory provision requiring that a person convicted of first or second degree murder be subject to the “least restrictive measures consistent with the protection of the public, staff members and offenders” (paragraph 4(d) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C., 1992, c. 20). We accept that this is an important issue for the appellant and as a matter of public policy. [4] However, we have concluded that it is not reasonable to expend judicial resources on this appeal because the record on appeal does not lend itself to a fair resolution of this issue. [5] The appeal is accordingly dismissed for mootness. “Marc Noël” J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-524-09 STYLE OF CAUSE: MARTHA KAHNAPACE v. AGC PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia DATE OF HEARING: October 21, 2010 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT NOËL J.A. OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A. LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: NOËL J.A. APPEARANCES: Sarah J. Rauch FOR THE APPELLANT Curtis Workun Charmaine de los Reyes FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Barrister & Solicitor Vancouver, British Columbia FOR THE APPELLANT Myles J. Kirvan Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT