An immigration detainee applied for habeas corpus after 13 months in immigration detention, challenging the legality of his detention on the grounds that it was lengthy and of indeterminate duration and was being served in inappropriate maximum-security lockdown conditions, both in alleged violation of ss. 7 and 9 of the Charter.
The chambers judge declined jurisdiction on the basis that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provided a complete, comprehensive and expert statutory scheme at least as broad and advantageous as habeas corpus (the Peiroo exception).
The majority of the Supreme Court held that the Peiroo exception does not bar habeas corpus applications in all immigration matters; rather, a court must examine whether the statutory scheme is as broad and advantageous as habeas corpus with respect to the specific grounds raised.
The IRPA scheme fell short in three ways regarding lengthy, indeterminate detention: the onus on detainees is less advantageous; the scope of federal court review is narrower than superior court review on habeas corpus; and the IRPA offers a less timely remedy.
The appeal was dismissed, with Abella J. dissenting on the basis that the IRPA scheme, properly interpreted, provides review at least as broad and advantageous as habeas corpus.
