Case information

Administrative law — Prisons — Procedure — Habeas corpus — Involuntary transfer — Indigenous offenders — Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that habeas corpus in prison context is civil remedy subject to Code of Civil Procedure — Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that applicant had filed his appeal out of time — Whether respondents discharged their duty to consider specific needs of Indigenous offenders in making decisions that concern them — Whether meaning given by application judge to term “only reasonable alternative” used in Commissioner’s Directive 708 is consistent with current state of law.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In 2018, the applicant, who is an Indigenous person, was serving a sentence at a medium security penitentiary. After the applicant was charged with aggravated assault against a fellow inmate, his case management team recommended an increase in his security classification and a transfer to a maximum security penitentiary. He was transferred first to a maximum security penitentiary and then to the Special Handling Unit (“SHU”). The applicant filed an application for habeas corpus in the Criminal Division of the Superior Court, alleging that his transfer to the SHU was an unlawful deprivation of his liberty. The Superior Court dismissed the application for habeas corpus. The Court of Appeal found that the transfer decision was an administrative decision and therefore civil in nature and that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”) applied in this case. Since the applicant had not complied with the 10 day time limit for appealing set out in art. 361 C.C.P., the Court of Appeal found and declared that the applicant’s right to appeal had been forfeited and dismissed the appeal.