J. Todd Sloan

A federal inmate brought a habeas corpus application challenging a decision by prison authorities to reclassify and involuntarily transfer him from medium security to maximum security.

The inmate argued that correctional authorities improperly withheld information relied upon in the transfer decision under s. 27(3) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The court reviewed sealed materials and compared them with the summaries provided to the inmate.

It found that important information was not disclosed in gist form and that the reliability of sources had not been adequately addressed as required by governing jurisprudence.

The court held that these failures rendered the decision procedurally unfair and unlawful.

A federal inmate brought an application for habeas corpus with certiorari in aid seeking transfer from a maximum security institution back to a medium security facility following an involuntary transfer related to an inmate assault investigation.

The applicant alleged breaches of procedural fairness, inadequate disclosure under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and violations of section 7 of the Charter.

The court reviewed confidential sealed material relied upon by the warden and held that limited disclosure was justified under s. 27(3) of the CCRA to protect the safety of confidential sources.

The court concluded that the security reclassification and transfer decision were reasonable and lawful, and that the respondent satisfied its burden to justify the deprivation of liberty.

The habeas corpus application was therefore dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding his security level on habeas corpus.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because the appellant had already been moved to the level of security he sought, noting that alternate remedies exist for concerns relating to his corrections record.