F. O’Connor

The applicant brought a habeas corpus application challenging decisions by correctional authorities to reclassify him from medium to maximum security and to transfer him to a maximum security institution in Saskatchewan.

He argued the evidence relied upon by correctional authorities was insufficient, that disclosure was inadequate, and that Gladue principles and community connections weighed against the decisions.

The court reviewed both public and sealed affidavit evidence pursuant to Mission Institution v. Khela and found the correctional authorities lawfully withheld certain information under s. 27(3) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act while providing sufficient summaries for procedural fairness.

The court held that the decisions to reclassify and transfer the inmate were reasonable, transparent, and supported by reliable evidence.

The habeas corpus application was dismissed.

The applicant sought habeas corpus relief arguing that his custodial sentence had been fully satisfied due to an alleged ambiguity in the Warrant of Committal regarding whether one count was consecutive or concurrent.

Correctional Service Canada initially interpreted the sentence as four years but later corrected the calculation to six years after clarification from the sentencing judge.

The court held that the sentencing reasons clearly imposed a six‑year custodial sentence after credit for pre‑sentence custody and that the amended warrant merely clarified the intended sentence.

The correction did not amount to an impermissible reconsideration of sentence and did not violate the applicant’s Charter rights.

The application for habeas corpus was therefore dismissed.