Christopher Lawrence Ezrin

The plaintiff sought to amend his 13-year-old Statement of Claim to add a claim under section 15 of the Charter and to include Department of Justice (DOJ) employees as impugned actors.

The defendants opposed, citing prejudice due to delay and arguing the DOJ claim was not legally recognizable.

The court granted leave to add the section 15 Charter claim, finding it was not a new cause of action or that any limitation period was not plain and obvious.

However, the court dismissed the request to add DOJ employees, holding that lawyers acting in their professional capacity for the Crown are generally not personally liable for Charter breaches, distinguishing this from the role of Crown prosecutors in criminal cases.

Following a successful habeas corpus application resulting in his release from immigration detention, the applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent opposed the quantum, arguing the applicant should have pursued judicial review in Federal Court.

The court found that the respondent had treated the matter as a test case to defend the jurisdiction of the Immigration Division, despite agreeing the applicant should be released.

The court awarded the applicant his full requested costs of $61,760.50 on a partial indemnity scale pursuant to section 24(1) of the Charter and Rule 57.01.

The applicant, a refugee claimant, sought a writ of habeas corpus to be released from immigration detention after being held for 17 months.

The detention was based on a series of alleged breaches of release conditions that were either inadvertent or based on errors by police and immigration authorities.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding that the continued detention lacked a valid purpose, was arbitrary, and violated the principles of fundamental justice under sections 7 and 9 of the Charter.

The court held that the Immigration Division's deference to the Canada Border Services Agency in determining breaches constituted procedural unfairness.

The Crown appealed a 12-month conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for possession of a loaded restricted firearm, arguing it was an illegal sentence under s. 95(2) of the Criminal Code which mandates a minimum one-year imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal agreed the sentence was illegal and held that a sentence of two years less a day would have been appropriate.

However, given the respondent's six months of pre-trial custody (credited 2-for-1), seven months served on the conditional sentence, and ten months on restrictive bail, the court declined to re-incarcerate him.

The court substituted a sentence of time served followed by two years' probation.