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

Ryan v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a parole denial, finding the Appeal Division’s decision reasonable and no breach of s. 12 of the Charter.

• Parole
• Dangerous offender
• Indeterminate sentence
• Section 12 charter
• Standard of review (reasonableness)
• Jurisdiction

Read case analysis

Kim v. Correctional Service Canada

Court

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

The Tribunal dismissed Frank Kim’s retaliation complaint, finding no proof that CSC’s psychologist knew of his prior human rights complaints or relied on them in the report.

• Retaliation
• Disability discrimination
• Religion discrimination
• Psychological assessment
• File correction
• Parole decision

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

R. v. Carvery

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

After establishing a baseline sentencing range for a petty retailer trafficking larger amounts of crack cocaine (24–60 months) and a pre-mitigation midpoint of 40 months, the judge applied aggravating factors (crack cocaine, offence while on parole, fifth trafficking conviction, failure to attend sentencing) and mitigating contextual factors from the IRCA to conclude that a fit and proper sentence is two years' imprisonment followed by two years' probation with the ancillary orders sought by the Crown and waiver of the victim surcharge.

Source excerpt

• Possession for purpose of trafficking
• Crack cocaine
• Impact of race and cultural assessments (irca)
• Probation
• Parole
• Forfeiture

Read case analysis

R. v. Gordon

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The court declined to exercise its s.679(7.1) jurisdiction and directed the applicant to attend the Superior Court because the Crown demonstrated a legitimate need to cross-examine the surety that could not be accommodated in this court before the scheduled hearing and the trial court is better placed to conduct the contested bail hearing; the Crown's undertaking not to seek the applicant's immediate arrest mitigated the risk of injustice from surrendering to custody.

Source excerpt

• Judicial release
• Bail
• Retrial
• Jurisdiction to hear bail
• Surety cross-examination
• Parole

Read case analysis

Ewert v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court granted judicial review of a parole decision, finding the Gladue analysis unreasonable and remitting the matter for a new day-parole determination.

• Gladue principles
• Reasonableness standard of review
• Parole eligibility
• Remittal for redetermination
• Gladue-principles
• Parole

Read case analysis

Moazami v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court struck a self-represented applicant’s habeas corpus application, finding the complaints did not show an unlawful deprivation of residual liberty.

• Residual liberty
• Judicial review
• Parole
• Prison transfers
• Prison conditions
• Costs

Read case analysis

R. v. Norris

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Although the sentencing judge misstated the onus of proof in one passage, she applied the correct Boutilier analytical framework, properly considered the psychiatrist's evidence and Correctional Services Canada evidence in the context of the appellant's extensive violent history and non-compliance, and reasonably concluded that only an indeterminate sentence would adequately protect the public; appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Indeterminate sentence
• Long-term supervision order
• Onus of proof
• Psychiatric evidence
• Correctional supervision
• Parole

Read case analysis

R. v. Simeunovich

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court held the sentencing judge provided adequate reasons, did not err in principle, and reasonably weighed aggravating factors (extensive record, offences committed on parole, deliberate and repeated breaches of prohibitions, use of a forged licence and resulting public safety risk); given those findings and the 2018 statutory increase in maximum penalty the 8.5‑year sentence (concurrent on counts, consecutive to existing custody) was within the range of reasoned outcomes and not demonstrably unfit, so leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Driving while disqualified
• Sentencing principles
• Proportionality
• Parity
• Jump principle
• Totality principle

Read case analysis