The court dismissed the habeas application because the respondent met the burden to show the restriction of the applicant's residual liberty was lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair given the applicant's security risk, disciplinary history and applicable public health directives; deference to facility management was appropriate.
The court dismissed Enns’s COVID-related Charter relief as moot given the adjournment and changing public-health context but held that the low Vukelich threshold was met for the venue complaint; the claim that proximity of the HRP detachment and signage to the Mellor Courthouse could impair jury impartiality and appearance of fairness will proceed to a Charter voir dire on ss.7 and 11(d).
Motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction dismissed. The Court held the applicant had not exhausted internal remedies and had not met the injunction test.