Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court dismissed Albert Muckle’s habeas corpus application and related requests, finding no unlawful deprivation of liberty, no jurisdiction for mandamus, and no basis for a subpoena.
The court struck Weimin Wu’s habeas corpus application, held it was vexatious and an abuse of process, and declared him a vexatious litigant under s. 18.
The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision to decline habeas corpus jurisdiction because the Parole Board/CCRA parole review regime is a complete, comprehensive and expert scheme (Peiroo/May exception); although the application judge erred in treating the application as a collateral attack and in obtaining a prior transcript without notice, that error was harmless because the Peiroo exception independently justified declining jurisdiction and the rehabilitative impasse was not sufficiently raised below.
Source excerpt
The court declared Daniel Bruneau a dangerous offender and imposed indeterminate detention, rejecting a long-term offender sentence and ancillary grounds on risk and control.
La Cour suprême de la Colombie-Britannique rejette des demandes d’habeas corpus de M. Gustavson, les jugeant des attaques collatérales et renvoyant les questions de libération conditionnelle aux voies appropriées.
The Federal Court dismissed Mr. Latham’s judicial review of a parole Appeal Division decision, finding no bias, no unfairness, and no s. 12 Charter breach.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal struck out and dismissed Mr. Gustavson’s habeas corpus appeal as frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process, and without merit.
The court declared William Gibson Brown a dangerous offender under the Criminal Code and ordered an indeterminate sentence after finding his conduct deeply intractable.
The Court of Appeal set aside a dangerous offender designation and ordered a new hearing, holding the appellant should have been assessed under the amended Part XXIV regime.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Pinkney’s appeal from the refusal of habeas corpus relief, holding that internal Parole Board and Federal Court remedies had not been exhausted.
Explore more
