Jacqueline Shirley Gumienny

The applicant, a federal inmate, sought habeas corpus to challenge an involuntary transfer from minimum to maximum security in 2015, alleging procedural unfairness and unreasonableness by Correctional Services of Canada (CSC).

Prior to filing the application, the applicant was voluntarily transferred from maximum to medium security in 2016.

The court found the application moot because the challenged 2015 decision had been superseded by the 2016 voluntary transfer, which reflected a current assessment of his security risk and did not deprive him of residual liberty.

Furthermore, the court found the 2015 involuntary transfer decision to be both procedurally fair and reasonable, as CSC met its disclosure obligations under s. 27 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, providing the inmate with a summary of the case and an opportunity to respond, while properly withholding confidential information for safety and security reasons.

The application was dismissed.

A federal inmate serving a life sentence applied for habeas corpus with certiorari in aid, seeking to quash a decision that had reclassified him from medium to maximum security and to secure a transfer back to medium security.

By the time of the hearing, the applicant had already been reclassified and transferred back to a medium security institution.

The court held that habeas corpus requires a current deprivation of liberty, which was absent at the time of adjudication.

Applying the mootness framework from Borowski, the court declined to exercise discretion to decide the issue because the dispute was fact-specific, lacked public importance, and any ruling would have no practical effect.

The court also held it lacked jurisdiction to quash the prison authorities’ decision, as such relief falls within the Federal Court’s exclusive jurisdiction.