L. Lacelle

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to dismiss a habeas corpus application filed by an inmate serving an indeterminate sentence as a dangerous offender.

The inmate sought relief regarding his sentence and parole inadmissibility, alleging tainted evidence at his sentencing and Charter violations.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding it frivolous under Rule 6.11(2) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure because habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge parole inadmissibility or revisit sentencing issues, as these do not constitute an unlawful continued deprivation of liberty reviewable by this remedy.

Following a motion regarding post-secondary expenses for the parties' daughter, the respondent sought full indemnity costs of $9,124.75.

The applicant argued that each party should bear their own costs or that any award should be minimal.

The court found the respondent was the successful party but noted neither party made an offer to settle and the respondent's bill of costs was disproportionate.

The court ordered the applicant to pay costs of $4,500 inclusive of HST.

Following a trial regarding decision-making responsibility for the parties' son, the successful applicant sought costs of $17,280.98.

The respondent did not file submissions.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, noting the respondent's failure to attend a previous settlement conference and his insistence on a trial despite having no realistic chance of success.

However, the court also recognized that the respondent had consented to other parenting terms, narrowing the issues.

Costs were fixed at $12,000 inclusive of HST.

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of incarceration following convictions for aggravated assault, break and enter, choking, and failing to comply with probation.

The offender conceded he met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation but sought a determinate sentence.

The court designated the offender a dangerous offender.

After considering Gladue factors, expert psychiatric evidence regarding the offender's antisocial personality disorder and substance use disorder, and the potential for risk reduction through treatment and aging, the court concluded a lesser measure than an indeterminate sentence would adequately protect the public.

The court imposed a determinate sentence of 8 years (in addition to presentence custody) followed by an 8-year Long-Term Supervision Order.