Derek Edwards

The plaintiffs, two senior citizens, were detained and arrested at the Canada-U.S. border by the CBSA and subsequently the Niagara Police based on outdated CPIC information indicating they had breached undertakings.

The undertakings had been vacated weeks earlier, but the RCMP failed to update the CPIC system.

The court found that the RCMP breached its duty of care by failing to promptly remove the inaccurate information, and that the CBSA and Niagara Police breached their standard of care by failing to verify the CPIC information before arresting the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' section 9 Charter rights were also violated.

The court awarded general and punitive damages against the RCMP and Niagara Police, but dismissed the claims against the CBSA as statute-barred under the Customs Act.

The applicant, serving a seven-year aggregate sentence for fraud, money laundering, and a criminal organization offence, brought a habeas corpus application challenging his ineligibility for accelerated parole review (APR).

He argued that while the criminal organization offence was ineligible for APR, his other offences should be considered separately and remain eligible.

The court found that while the applicant's argument had logical merit, it was bound by appellate authority holding that a single excludable offence renders an offender ineligible for APR on the entire merged sentence.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a federal inmate serving a life sentence, applied for habeas corpus after being involuntarily transferred from a minimum to a medium-security institution.

The transfer was based on allegations of his involvement in institutional subcultures, which he denied.

The court found that the Correctional Service of Canada failed to meet its disclosure obligations under section 27 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act by not providing the applicant with the Security Reclassification Scale (SRS) information.

This failure rendered the transfer decision procedurally unfair and unreasonable.

The application for habeas corpus was granted, and the applicant was ordered to be returned to a minimum-security institution.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's Order dismissing her action for delay.

The action, claiming $12,000,000 in damages arising from a border crossing incident, was dismissed after a series of miscommunications and missed deadlines regarding a discovery plan.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing prejudice because the plaintiff had recently been diagnosed with dementia and could not be examined on her claims for emotional distress.

The court applied the four-part test for setting aside a dismissal order and found that the delay was adequately explained by inadvertence and missteps by multiple parties.

The court concluded that the prejudice to the plaintiff of losing her entire action outweighed the prejudice to the defendants regarding the examination, and set aside the dismissal order.

Following a previous decision, the respondent sought costs against the self-represented applicant.

The respondent presented a bill of costs for partial indemnity costs totalling $21,112.00 but limited its request to $1,000.00 due to the applicant's circumstances.

The applicant did not deliver any submissions.

The court ordered the applicant to pay costs fixed at $1,000.00.