6 total
Constitutional challenge to COVID-19 mandatory hotel quarantine for air travellers dismissed.
The applicants challenged the constitutionality of the federal government's mandatory hotel quarantine requirement for international air travellers arriving in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic.
They argued the requirement violated their Charter rights and that the government failed to follow the advice of its expert advisory panel.
The court dismissed the application, finding that the government's policy choices were not arbitrary or irrational, and that the applicants failed to establish any breach of their Charter rights.
Interim injunction against mandatory COVID-19 hotel quarantine for air travellers denied.
The applicants sought an interim injunction to restrain the enforcement of the federal government's mandatory hotel quarantine rules for air travellers arriving in Canada, pending a full hearing on the constitutionality of the rules.
The applicants argued the rules violated their Charter rights, including mobility and liberty rights, and caused financial hardship.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a narrow serious issue to be tried under s. 7 of the Charter, the applicants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured the government's public health measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and its variants.
Habeas corpus is available to challenge any deprivation of liberty, including strict house arrest conditions.
Foreign nationals released from immigration detention on terms amounting to virtual house arrest sought habeas corpus relief when their application to modify the conditions was rejected.
The application judge dismissed the application, finding that habeas corpus was unavailable because the applicants were not held in custody.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that habeas corpus applies to any deprivation of liberty, not merely incarceration in a custodial facility.
The court remitted the matter to the Superior Court of Justice to determine whether the remaining requirements for habeas corpus were satisfied.
Appeals from habeas corpus dismissals based on a finding of no deprivation of liberty lie to the Court of Appeal.
The appellants, Chinese and Dominican citizens detained by the Canada Border Services Agency in immigration proceedings, appealed a Superior Court order dismissing their application for a writ of habeas corpus.
The lower court found no deprivation of liberty and dismissed the application.
The Court of Appeal addressed a jurisdictional issue regarding whether the appeal should proceed to the Divisional Court under section 8(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act or to the Court of Appeal under section 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.
The court held that because the lower court's dismissal was based on a finding of no deprivation of liberty, the statutory criteria in section 8(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act were not met, and therefore the appeal properly lay to the Court of Appeal.
House arrest does not constitute detention or a deprivation of liberty for the purpose of a habeas corpus application.
The applicants, foreign nationals under house arrest due to immigration proceedings, sought a writ of habeas corpus or modification of their release terms.
The Attorney General of Canada opposed and brought a preliminary motion for a stay based on lack of jurisdiction, arguing that house arrest does not constitute "detention" for habeas corpus purposes.
The court dismissed the application, finding that house arrest, while restrictive, does not amount to detention or a deprivation of liberty in the context of habeas corpus, distinguishing it from jail or imprisonment.
The court noted that the applicants had alternative remedies through the Immigration Division and Federal Court for modifying release terms.
Motion to stay deportation order pending habeas corpus appeal dismissed as deportation is an independent determination.
The moving party brought an urgent motion to stay a deportation order pending the release of the Court of Appeal's decision in an appeal concerning habeas corpus applications for lengthy immigration detention.
The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding no serious question to be tried because the deportation order is an independent immigration determination that would not be affected by the outcome of the habeas corpus appeal.
The court noted that deportation would actually bring an end to the detention the moving party sought to review.
