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.