Mr. Dodokin

The applicant, Jamil Osai Ogiamien, brought a habeas corpus application challenging the legality of his lengthy and uncertain immigration detention.

The court applied the framework from *Chaudhary v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)*, finding that the applicant's 25-month detention in a maximum-security facility was lengthy and of uncertain duration.

The Attorney General of Canada failed to demonstrate that the continued detention was reasonably necessary to further immigration control, particularly as the initial warrant was based on a misunderstanding of the applicant's custody status, and the CBSA had been dilatory in establishing his identity.

The court ordered the applicant's release on terms of judicial interim release.

The applicant, Jamil Osai Ogiamien, brought a habeas corpus application challenging his lengthy and uncertain detention under immigration control.

The court found that the applicant established reasonable and probable grounds for his complaint and that the Attorney General of Canada failed to demonstrate that his continued detention was reasonably necessary to further immigration control.

Consequently, the detention was deemed illegal, and the court ordered his release on terms of judicial interim release pending removal from Canada.

During a habeas corpus application challenging his immigration detention, the self-represented applicant sought to call a Canada Border Services Agency employee as a witness.

The respondent moved to quash the subpoena, arguing the witness had no relevant evidence.

The court allowed the applicant to commence questioning to establish relevance, but halted the testimony when the applicant failed to show the witness made any decisions affecting him or had any direct disclosure obligations.

The court effectively quashed the subpoena, leaving issues of disclosure and delay for final argument.

The self-represented applicant, an inmate contesting his immigration detention via a habeas corpus application, brought a motion to quash his 2002 criminal conviction or vary his sentence to avoid collateral immigration consequences.

He argued his guilty plea should be struck because he should not have been charged criminally until his refugee claim was adjudged, and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to advise the sentencing judge of the immigration consequences.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, holding that a court hearing a habeas corpus application does not sit as an appellate court and cannot be used to circumvent the ordinary appeal procedures established in the Criminal Code.