Jessica R. Orkin

The applicant brought an application for habeas corpus with certiorari in aid challenging the legality of his detention.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the applicant sought directions regarding the order of filing evidence at the second stage of the application, specifically whether he could file rebuttal evidence after the respondents filed their record.

The respondents argued the applicant should file all evidence first, consistent with typical application procedures.

The court held that habeas corpus proceedings are unique because the burden shifts to the respondents to justify the deprivation of liberty.

The court permitted the applicant to file rebuttal evidence after the respondents' materials so that the applicant could tailor his response to the case advanced against him.

The applicant municipality successfully obtained an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondents from blockading various development sites and successfully defended a motion to quash its by-laws.

The applicant subsequently sought its costs of the proceedings.

The respondents argued they were public interest litigants and that costs should be in the cause or paid by the province.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the respondents' unlawful conduct necessitated the litigation and they were not acting in the public interest.

The court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $350,000, significantly reducing the $887,000 claimed due to duplication, excessive time, and the exclusion of costs for a court-ordered consultation process.