John Dillon

The accused, a 50-year-old Aboriginal man with severe medical vulnerabilities, pleaded guilty to possession of percocets for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought 18 months to two years less a day in custody, while the defence sought a one-year conditional sentence.

Applying the principles from Gladue and Sharma, and taking judicial notice of the heightened risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic to incarcerated individuals, the court found that a conditional sentence was appropriate.

The accused was sentenced to a 12-month conditional sentence, including 45 days of house arrest, along with a weapons prohibition subject to a sustenance hunting exemption.

Edward Pengelly applied for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his security re-classification and transfer to a medium-security institution.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a preliminary motion challenging the Superior Court's jurisdiction, arguing that the Federal Court was the sole remedy.

The court dismissed the Attorney General's jurisdictional challenge, affirming the Superior Court's jurisdiction over habeas corpus applications in the prison context, distinguishing the case from precedents concerning mootness or challenges to conditions of detention rather than the lawfulness of detention itself.

Anthony Francis sought a declaration from the Ontario Superior Court that he was entitled to an in-person hearing before the Parole Board of Canada prior to the imposition of a residency condition, alleging a breach of procedural fairness.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to dismiss this application, arguing that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over federal tribunals, citing section 18(1)(a) of the Federal Courts Act.

The court, relying on established precedent, found that the Federal Courts Act unequivocally divests the Superior Court of jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief against federal boards, commissions, or tribunals.

Consequently, the Attorney General's motion was granted, and Francis's application was dismissed.

The applicant sought habeas corpus relief challenging a decision by correctional authorities to reclassify him from medium to maximum security and transfer him to a maximum‑security institution.

He argued that the decision was arbitrary and violated procedural fairness and s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because insufficient information was disclosed about the alleged assault that triggered the reclassification.

The court considered the disclosure obligations under s. 27 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the jurisprudence governing prison transfer decisions.

It held that although some intelligence information was not disclosed, the applicant had received sufficient information about the incident—including the existence of video surveillance—to understand the case against him and respond meaningfully.

The deprivation of liberty was therefore lawful and the application was dismissed.