Canada Case Law

McCotter v. Mission Institution (Warden)

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court has no jurisdiction under s.684 of the Criminal Code because the habeas corpus proceedings and related appeal are civil in nature (challenging prison administration and parole-related decisions rather than the validity of the warrant of committal); there is no statutory or rule-based authority for a justice of this Court to appoint state-funded counsel in a civil appeal; G.(J.) is distinguishable and does not authorize appointment here; accordingly the application for appointment of counsel is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Appointment of counsel
• Habeas corpus
• Section 684 criminal code
• Section 7 charter
• Jurisdiction to appoint counsel
• State-funded counsel

Read case analysis

Hayer v. Kent Institution (Warden)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The application was dismissed because the sealed intelligence material, properly withheld under s.27(3) CCRA and reviewed in camera, contained sufficient credible confirmatory evidence (staff observations and CCTV) linking the applicant to possession of a cellular phone, drone-assisted contraband activity, assaults over drug debts and close association with STG members; those facts justified classifying the applicant as requiring a high degree of supervision and control and a transfer to maximum security, and any non-dispositive disclosure shortcomings did not render the process procedurally…

Source excerpt

• Habeas corpus
• Involuntary transfer
• Security classification
• Procedural fairness
• Reasonableness judicial review
• Disclosure under s.27 ccra

Read case analysis

A.S. v. Evergreen House Long Term Care

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

M.S. was lawfully admitted to EGH because the Public Guardian and Trustee provided substitute consent under s.22 HCCCFAA for an incapable adult; given that lawful admission and the regulatory framework governing residence and supervised leave, the petitioner failed to establish a legitimate ground to question the lawfulness of any deprivation of liberty, and habeas corpus is not the appropriate mechanism to relitigate the care team's decision to disqualify the petitioner as TSDM; the petition is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Habeas corpus
• Involuntary detention
• Substitute decision-making
• Long-term care admission
• Consent to care
• Capacity assessment

Read case analysis

Tweedale v. British Columbia (Attorney General)

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court quashed an application to cancel a case-management order requiring a transcript, holding that s. 29 of the Court of Appeal Act does not apply to federal criminal matters.

• Habeas corpus
• Court of appeal act s.29
• Criminal appeal rules
• Jurisdictional limits of provincial legislation
• Case management orders
• Habeas-corpus

Read case analysis

R. v. M.J.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the habeas corpus application was moot after the appellant's release on bail and that there was no error in dismissing the application for lack of a live controversy.

Source excerpt

• Habeas corpus
• Mootness
• Charter remedies
• Pre-trial detention

Read case analysis

McCotter v. Warden of Mission Institution

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed an inmate’s request for state-funded counsel in aid of a habeas corpus challenge, finding no authority for such funding on these facts.

• State-funded counsel
• Habeas corpus
• Parole
• Commissioner's directives (cd 712-1)
• Charter s.7 and s.24(1)
• Judicial review

Read case analysis

Tweedale v. British Columbia (Attorney General)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a habeas corpus application challenging Criminal Code s. 515(6)(c), holding the reverse onus does not breach ss. 7 or 11(e) of the Charter.

• Bail
• Reverse onus
• Habeas corpus
• Charter s.7
• Charter s.11(e)
• Judicial interim release s.515(6)(c)

Read case analysis

Gilbert v. British Columbia (Mental Health Review Board)

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal about the proper process for a Mental Health Act s. 33 challenge, holding the application must be brought by petition.

• Procedure for statutory applications
• Petition vs appeal
• Habeas corpus
• Judicial review
• Statutory interpretation
• Petitions

Read case analysis

Forster v. Canada (Correctional Service)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal is allowed and habeas corpus granted because the sentencing judge ordered a psychiatric remand without invoking or applying the actual statutory authority (Mental Health Act s.21) and therefore acted without jurisdiction in that respect, and separately fettered his discretion by wrongly asserting he had no discretion to refuse a dangerous offender designation; those jurisdictional and fettering errors rendered the DO designation and the indeterminate sentence invalid. The appropriate remedy is to quash the DO-based detention and remit the matter to a different Superior Court judge…

Source excerpt

• Habeas corpus
• Dangerous offender designation
• Psychiatric remand
• Mental health act s.21
• Charter ss.7 and 8 and s.24(1)
• Judicial discretion

Read case analysis

Bevan v. Fraser Regional Correctional Centre (Warden)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court granted habeas corpus after finding Mr. Bevan’s transfer to a more restrictive institution was ongoing and procedurally unfair.

• Habeas corpus
• Procedural fairness
• Prisoner transfer
• Security classification
• Residual liberty
• Certiorari

Read case analysis