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 Federal Court dismissed this judicial review as moot after the applicant was later granted day parole again, finding no live controversy and no reason to hear it anyway.
The court struck a habeas corpus application challenging a parole revocation, finding the CCRA appeal and Federal Court review process was adequate and the petition abusive.
The Federal Court allowed a defence witness to testify by videoconference, ordering document-sharing and privacy protections to reduce prejudice and safeguard the witness.
The Federal Court dismissed one judicial review as moot after statutory release was revoked, but allowed a second review to proceed because the applicant was not fully successful before the Appeal Division.
The Federal Court dismissed Mr. Ruston’s judicial review as moot after he was later re-released on day parole, finding no live controversy and no reason to decide the merits.
The Court of Appeal held the sentencing judge erred in principle by using the appellant's lack of remorse as an aggravating factor and effectively punishing him for exercising his right to full answer and defence; that error had an impact on the sentence; the appellate court resentenced de novo, upheld factual findings not tainted by the error, and reduced the custodial sentence from 14 years to 10 years while affirming restitution, fine in lieu of forfeiture, and pre-sentence custody credit as previously ordered.
Source excerpt
Detention was not necessary under s.515(10)(b) or (c); the Crown failed to show the public could not be protected or that confidence in the administration of justice required detention given the applicant’s prior compliance with release terms, the lack of charges arising from the altercation, the ability to impose restrictive conditions (including prohibition on possessing images of persons under 18), the appellate findings that undermined the apparent strength of the prosecution’s case, and the exceptional COVID-19 constraints on in‑person supervision, therefore interim release on the draft…
Source excerpt
Judicial review of a parole revocation was allowed after the Court found the Board failed to ensure the reliability of key evidence and breached procedural fairness.
The appeal from the refusal of habeas corpus is dismissed as moot; on the merits, habeas corpus challenging parole revocation is properly characterized as criminal in nature because revocation serves the criminal law purpose of protecting society under s.135 CCRA, and therefore the application judge erred in treating the matter as civil and awarding costs; the costs order is set aside and the fresh evidence application is dismissed as unnecessary.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court granted judicial review in DeMaria, finding the Parole Board breached procedural fairness by denying a further postponement and an oral hearing.
Explore more
