3 total
Judicial review granted; CHRC unreasonably dismissed complaint by failing to address bad faith processing allegations.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Canadian Human Rights Commission decision dismissing her complaint as trivial.
The complaint alleged discrimination both in the denial of Indian status and in the lengthy, bad-faith processing of her application.
The CHRC determined that section 10.1 of Bill S-3 barred compensation for past denials of status and dismissed the entire complaint.
The Federal Court found the decision unreasonable because the CHRC failed to address the central argument that the processing delays and bad faith treatment constituted a separate, ongoing issue not barred by section 10.1.
The application was granted and the matter remitted for redetermination.
Judicial review of a Customs Act contravention decision dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister's Delegate confirming a contravention of the Customs Act and seizing undeclared prescription drugs found in his vehicle at a land border crossing.
The Federal Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application for judicial review because the applicant was essentially challenging the contravention decision under section 131 of the Customs Act.
Under section 135(1) of the Act, such a challenge must be brought by way of an action, not an application for judicial review.
The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.
Habeas corpus application dismissed as the inmate's cancelled temporary absence did not constitute a deprivation of liberty.
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.
