The applicant, an inmate serving a life sentence, was granted three unescorted temporary absences (UTAs) by the Parole Board of Canada.
After completing two, his third UTA was cancelled because the designated halfway house withdrew its support.
The applicant sought a writ of habeas corpus to compel the third UTA.
The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had not suffered a deprivation of liberty because the prerequisite condition for his release was never fulfilled.
Furthermore, the court declined jurisdiction because the Corrections and Conditional Release Act provides a complete and comprehensive statutory regime for reviewing such administrative decisions.
