David Michael Aaron

After dismissal of a constitutional application for lack of standing and non‑justiciability, the respondent sought costs of the proceeding.

The court considered the absence of Rule 49 offers and the respondent’s partial indemnity entitlement as the successful party.

The respondent incurred over $38,000 in legal costs and disbursements but sought recovery of $10,000.

The court found the request reasonable given the constitutional issues raised and the applicant’s litigation conduct, including voluminous irrelevant materials and late filings.

Costs of $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST were awarded against the applicant.

An inmate brought a habeas corpus application challenging his reclassification and transfer from a minimum security institution to a medium security institution.

He argued the correctional authorities’ decision was unreasonable and that he had not received adequate disclosure of the information relied upon.

The court reviewed the legal framework governing habeas corpus, including the requirement to show unlawful deprivation of liberty and the administrative nature of prison transfer decisions.

It concluded that even if a reasonableness standard applied, the decision to transfer was supported by information available to correctional authorities and was not arbitrary.

The court further held that procedural fairness requirements were satisfied because the inmate received sufficient information to understand the case against him.

The applicant sought declarations that the Canada Act 1982 prevents Canada from consenting to United Kingdom legislation altering the rules of succession to the Crown and that provisions barring Catholics or those married to Catholics from ascending to the Crown are of no force or effect.

The court addressed preliminary issues of justiciability and standing.

Relying on prior authority, the court held that the rules of royal succession form part of the constitutional structure of Canada as a constitutional monarchy and are not subject to Charter scrutiny.

The court further held that the applicant lacked standing because he had no personal stake and raised only a hypothetical concern.

The application was therefore dismissed.

The applicant brought an application for habeas corpus with certiorari in aid challenging a decision by the warden to reclassify him from medium to maximum security within the federal penitentiary system.

He argued that Correctional Service Canada failed to provide adequate disclosure of the case against him, thereby breaching procedural fairness under s. 27 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The court held that in the penitentiary context the duty of disclosure requires only that the inmate receive the gist of the case, not full particulars or disclosure of informer identities or investigative details.

The applicant had been informed of the essential allegations, including concerns about rehabilitation progress and communications intercepts linking him to contraband activity.

The court concluded that the disclosure met procedural fairness requirements and that the warden’s decision was reasonable.