Carolyn Thuy Vy Phan

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class action on behalf of Indigenous children living off-reserve who have been through Ontario's child welfare system, along with their caregiving parents and grandparents, and Indigenous children who have experienced gaps and delays in accessing essential services such as education and health services.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the claim lacked a viable cause of action, failed to establish an identifiable class, lacked common issues, and was not a preferable procedure for resolution.

The court held that the claim impugned broad government policies and funding decisions rather than specific wrongful acts, raising justiciability concerns.

The court also found that the representative plaintiffs could not succeed as they were attempting a collateral attack on valid court orders.

The appellant, designated a dangerous offender, appealed the Superior Court's dismissal of his habeas corpus application.

He argued the application judge misapprehended his complaint, which was against the Correctional Service of Canada for failing to provide necessary programming, creating a "rehabilitative impasse," rather than against the Parole Board.

The Court of Appeal found the "rehabilitative impasse" argument was not sufficiently raised below.

It upheld the application judge's decision to decline habeas corpus jurisdiction based on the Parole Board's comprehensive review system (the Peiroo exception from May v. Ferndale Institution), but found the application judge erred in also declining jurisdiction based on collateral attack and in using an un-noticed transcript.

Despite the error, the appeal was dismissed as the Peiroo exception was sufficient.