James Stuckey

The Crown applied to designate the offender as a dangerous offender following a conviction for arson.

The offender has severe cognitive disabilities and a history of trauma, and sets fires as a coping mechanism.

The court found that the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation and imposed an indeterminate sentence.

However, the court also found that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) historically failed to provide the offender with appropriate, tailored mental health treatment, resulting in prolonged periods of segregation.

The court held that serving an indeterminate sentence in a penitentiary without meaningful treatment would extinguish any hope of rehabilitation and parole, constituting an anticipatory breach of the offender's rights against cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter.

As a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter, the court ordered CSC to transfer the offender to a provincial psychiatric hospital within 120 days and retained supervisory jurisdiction to monitor compliance.

The appellant appealed a lower court's dismissal of her application against the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows for dismissal of frivolous, vexatious, or abusive proceedings.

The appellant sought declarations regarding the disrepute of the justice system and breaches of Charter rights.

The motion judge dismissed the application without a hearing, finding it an attempt to relitigate similar allegations, lacking standing, and non-justiciable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, affirming the motion judge's discretion to proceed without submissions under Rule 2.1.01 and her finding that the application was an abuse of process.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

This appeal concerned the jurisdiction of a provincial court judge to hear references under s. 74 of the Firearms Act.

The respondents, firearms owners, initiated these references after receiving letters from the RCMP/Registrar stating their firearm registration certificates were "automatically nullified" due to new regulations (SOR/2020-96).

The Attorney General of Canada argued these letters were merely informational and did not constitute a "revocation" triggering s. 74 jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Attorney General's appeal, holding that the nullification of registration certificates occurred by operation of law (the new regulations), not by an individualized decision or revocation by the Registrar.

Consequently, the provincial court judge lacked jurisdiction under s. 74 of the Firearms Act, and the disclosure order issued by the reference judge was invalid.

This decision addresses a motion to intervene in an appeal concerning the Ontario Court of Justice's jurisdiction to hear reference cases under the Firearms Act.

The proposed intervener, J.P., sought to join the appeal, arguing his unique procedural journey in a similar s. 74 application would offer an additional perspective.

The Attorney General of Canada opposed the intervention, contending J.P.'s perspective would not be distinct from the existing respondents and could unduly expand the litigation's scope.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while J.P. had an interest, his position was not meaningfully different from other similarly situated individuals, and granting intervention would expand the record and present evidentiary problems.

The appellant, a disbarred lawyer, appealed the dismissal of her habeas corpus application challenging the validity of her warrant of committal.

The application judge had found the application frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting that the arguments had been unsuccessfully raised multiple times before.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appeal, specifically endorsing the application judge's analysis and conclusion, and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant, an inmate at Grand Valley Institution for Women, applied for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of her warrant of committal.

The respondent moved to dismiss the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found that the applicant was attempting to relitigate issues already decided against her by the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal.

The court dismissed the application summarily under the Criminal Proceedings Rules and declined to award costs, noting there is no jurisdiction to award costs in criminal habeas corpus matters.