Allan Manson

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus application.

The application judge had declined jurisdiction in favour of a judicial review application before the Federal Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in May v. Ferndale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it was bound by its recent decision in R. v. Graham, which established that the parole review process under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act constitutes a complete, comprehensive, and expert procedure for review, thus falling within the exception to the Superior Court's habeas corpus jurisdiction.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Superintendent of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario refusing to stay discipline proceedings against him for delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, noting that judicial review of interim administrative decisions is generally refused absent exceptional circumstances.

The court found no reasonable apprehension of bias or denial of procedural fairness that would justify intervening before the hearing on the merits.

The applicants brought a motion to set aside an order denying a stay of a lower court decision that permitted the closure of a minimum-security federal institution and the transfer of its residents.

The Court of Appeal applied the R.J.R.-MacDonald test and found that the Charter issues raised constituted a serious issue to be tried.

The court also found that the applicants might suffer irreparable harm if moved, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay, particularly given the respondent's undertaking not to close or sell the facility pending the appeal.

The motion was granted and a stay was ordered.

The appellants, serving life sentences for murder, applied for habeas corpus to challenge a new policy by the Commissioner of Corrections that automatically classified them as maximum security.

The motion judge declined to exercise jurisdiction, holding that the Federal Court was the appropriate forum.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that while provincial superior courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus applications regarding prison conditions, they should generally decline to exercise it when the application essentially challenges a federal statutory power that is subject to judicial review in the Federal Court, absent exceptional circumstances.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years under Criminal Code provisions enacted after the offence was committed.

Had she been tried under the law in force at the time of the offence, her parole ineligibility would have been between 10 and 20 years.

After serving 10 years in an Ontario penitentiary, she applied for habeas corpus and Charter relief, arguing her continued detention under the 25-year ineligibility period violated s. 7 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Ontario courts had jurisdiction to issue habeas corpus, that the remedy was appropriate to review the legality of her parole ineligibility, and that applying s. 7 to her continuing deprivation of liberty did not constitute a retrospective application of the Charter.

The Court declared her eligible for parole.