Brian G. Whitehead

The applicant, a self-represented accused in custody facing serious sexual assault charges, sought an order for broader internet and email access to prepare for his upcoming jury trial.

He argued that his current limited access to and disclosure review was insufficient for researching complex legal, technical, and scientific issues, and for contacting potential counsel or experts.

The court dismissed the application, affirming that while an accused has the right to self-representation, this right is not absolute and does not entitle them to the same resources as if they were not in custody.

The court considered the significant security risks and practical difficulties for correctional staff in monitoring broad internet access, and noted that Amicus counsel was available to assist with research.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus application, arguing his detention was unlawful due to a new information adding charges without a new arrest and the failure to hold timely detention review hearings under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court maintained jurisdiction over the appellant despite the new information, as he was lawfully before the court.

It further affirmed that the failure to hold a s. 525 detention review hearing does not automatically render detention unlawful; the appropriate remedy is an immediate review, which the appellant was offered and eventually received.

The court also found no abuse of process justifying a stay of proceedings.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard two motions arising from two notices of appeal filed by the appellant, Deepan Budlakoti.

The Crown sought to quash a 'Charter Appeal' concerning a pre-trial application dismissal, arguing it was an interlocutory order without a right of appeal.

Mr. Budlakoti sought reconsideration of a decision refusing his application for appointment of counsel for his 'Habeas Appeal' challenging detention conditions.

The court granted the Crown's motion, quashing the Charter Appeal as an interlocutory criminal appeal.

Mr. Budlakoti's motion for counsel was dismissed, as the court agreed there was no arguable ground of appeal for the Habeas Appeal.

This decision provides reasons for an inquiry into an incident where the accused, David Baichoo, appeared in a security gown, naked underneath, on the first day of his first-degree murder trial.

The incident, which led to the loss of a trial day and compromised the dignity of the proceedings, was attributed to the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC).

The court found that the TSDC's reliance on unreliable body scans for contraband and the indifference of staff, particularly Sgt. Polanski, led to the deplorable situation.

Despite the subsequent abandonment of the defence's application for costs, the court issued these reasons to highlight systemic failures in the treatment of accused persons and to ensure accountability.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed two decisions granting habeas corpus relief to an individual detained on account of an outstanding deportation order.

The applicant had been detained for approximately 25 months on immigration grounds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision to release the applicant on habeas corpus, finding that the detention was lengthy and of uncertain duration and could no longer be justified as furthering the machinery of immigration control.

However, the Court found that the application judge erred by assuming jurisdiction to supervise any subsequent re-incarceration by immigration authorities.

The Court struck the problematic supervisory clause and provided guidance on appropriate conditions for release in immigration detention cases.

The applicants, an immigration detainee and a remand detainee housed in a maximum security provincial correctional facility, brought an application for habeas corpus and a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

They alleged that frequent and unpredictable lockdowns, primarily caused by staff shortages, violated their Charter rights.

During lockdowns, inmates were confined to their double-bunked cells for 24 hours a day with limited access to showers, phones, and programs.

The court found that the conditions during the lockdowns, which occurred approximately 50% of the time, constituted cruel and unusual treatment in violation of s. 12 of the Charter.

The court declined to order a systemic remedy or a transfer, but awarded Charter damages of $60,000 to the immigration detainee (payable jointly by Ontario and Canada) and $25,000 to the remand detainee (payable by Ontario).

A self‑represented immigration detainee brought a habeas corpus application challenging the legality of his ongoing detention under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and alleging restricted access to legal resources while held in a provincial correctional institution.

The respondents argued the matter was res judicata and that the Superior Court should decline jurisdiction because the Federal Court provides a comprehensive statutory review scheme for immigration detention decisions.

The court held the res judicata argument was not established on the record.

However, it found the evidentiary record insufficient to determine whether the applicant had a meaningful remedy available through Federal Court judicial review.

The court therefore reserved its decision on jurisdiction and the merits and adjourned the application to allow the applicant to attempt to pursue remedies in Federal Court and obtain legal resources.

The applicant, an inmate awaiting sentencing for attempted murder and aggravated sexual assault related to HIV transmission, applied for habeas corpus to be removed from administrative segregation and placed in the general prison population with a cellmate.

The applicant argued a denial of procedural fairness and failure to conduct mandated five-day reviews.

The court found that while there was a denial of procedural fairness in how the reviews were documented, the applicant was aware of the reasons for his segregation.

Due to the high risk the applicant posed to other inmates, the court held that administrative segregation was lawful and necessary for safety.

The application was dismissed, but the institution was ordered to continue offering alternative accommodation proposals.