Benjamin Wong

The applicants, federal inmates, sought a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the Correctional Service of Canada's (CSC) refusal to reclassify them to minimum security, which prevented their transfer to lower-security institutions.

The core legal question was whether such a refusal constitutes a "deprivation of liberty" reviewable by habeas corpus.

The court, applying the principle of judicial comity and reviewing extensive jurisprudence, concluded that maintaining an existing security classification does not amount to a deprivation of liberty, as it does not impose new or additional constraints on residual liberty.

Consequently, habeas corpus was not an available remedy, and the applications were dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim challenging federal Covid-19 travel restrictions.

The Court found the claim was an abuse of process, as it was a relitigation of a previously struck claim, and failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action because the plaintiff did not plead material facts satisfying the elements of the alleged Charter breaches.

The motion was granted and the statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

The applicant moved for an order declaring the respondents in breach of a settlement agreement concerning the Canadian Thalidomide Survivors Support Program.

The applicant argued that the decision letters rejecting claims under the program provided inadequate reasons, as they relied on an opaque diagnostic algorithm.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion, holding that the settlement agreement required reasons but did not establish a standard for the quality or adequacy of those reasons.

The Court noted that the applicant's complaints should be addressed through judicial review of individual decisions rather than as a breach of the settlement agreement.

The applicants (families of victims and the CBC) sought judicial review of decisions by the Parole Board of Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada denying requests under the Access to Information Act and the Open Court Principle for disclosure of complete parole and prison files, as well as audio recordings of parole hearings, concerning two incarcerated individuals.

The Court held that Parole Board hearings are inquisitorial, not judicial or quasi-judicial, and thus the Open Court Principle did not mandate the disclosure sought.

The Court further found that the administrative decisions to withhold the information were reasonable, as they appropriately balanced the statutory objectives with the inmates' privacy interests and the public interest.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Canadian Human Rights Commission decision not to deal with his 2019 complaint alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The Commission found the complaint vexatious as the allegations were previously addressed and settled in 2005, and untimely because it was filed approximately 14 years after the events.

The Federal Court found the Commission's decision reasonable on both grounds, noting the complaint was an attempt to relitigate issues previously resolved, and dismissed the application for judicial review without costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Social Security Tribunal - Appeal Division refusing leave to appeal.

The applicant had applied for Employment Insurance benefits late and sought to antedate his application, arguing he delayed because his employer had not issued a Record of Employment.

The General Division found he lacked good cause for the delay as he failed to take reasonably prompt steps to determine his entitlement.

The Appeal Division refused leave to appeal, finding no reasonable chance of success.

The Federal Court held the Appeal Division's decision was reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a federal inmate, challenged his involuntary transfer from a minimum-security to a medium-security institution and the corresponding increase in his security classification.

He argued the decision was procedurally unfair, unreasonable, and lacked evidentiary foundation.

The court found that the Correctional Service of Canada complied with its disclosure obligations by providing sufficient summaries of withheld confidential information.

The court also held that the Warden's decision was reasonable, as the applicant's escalating deceitful and intimidating behaviour demonstrated he could no longer be safely managed in a minimum-security environment.

The John Howard Society of Canada (JHSC) brought a motion for leave to intervene as an added party in three joined habeas corpus applications.

The applicants, who are inmates, challenged the denial of their requests to transfer to minimum-security institutions.

The JHSC sought to intervene on the threshold question of whether such a denial constitutes a deprivation of liberty.

The court granted the motion on terms, finding that the JHSC had a genuine interest and could make a useful contribution regarding the constitutional and practical context of transfer decisions.

However, the court restricted the JHSC from participating in the development of the evidentiary record to avoid duplication and prejudice.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion for reconsideration of an earlier order striking her claim, arguing the court overlooked her inability to join the videoconference hearing after it commenced.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion, noting it had already considered her absence and found it was her responsibility to attend before the conference locked.

No costs were awarded.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim in its entirety and without leave to amend.

The plaintiff had alleged various wrongdoings by government officials and police agencies, claiming numerous recognized and unrecognized causes of action.

After repeated scheduling issues and failures by the plaintiff to attend hearings on time, the motion proceeded.

The court found that the statement of claim made bald allegations deficient in material facts, preventing the defendants from knowing how to answer.

The court concluded the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, was frivolous and vexatious, and struck the claim without leave to amend, awarding $500 in costs to the defendants.

The applicant sought judicial review of three Canadian Human Rights Commission decisions that refused to consider his complaints regarding tax audits by the CRA and patent rejections by CIPO.

The Commission dismissed the complaints as frivolous under section 41(1)(d) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, finding no link between the adverse treatment and a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The Federal Court found no breach of procedural fairness and upheld the decisions as reasonable, noting the applicant's "statistical evidence" confused correlation with causation and failed to establish any link to national or ethnic origin.

The applicants, federal inmates, applied for habeas corpus seeking transfers to minimum-security institutions.

The respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to summarily dismiss the applications as frivolous, arguing that a refusal to transfer to a lower security classification does not constitute a deprivation of liberty.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that jurisprudence is divided on whether such a refusal amounts to a deprivation of liberty, and therefore the applications were not clearly frivolous or abusive on their face.