Judy Michaely

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike two paragraphs from the Statement of Claim which sought wide-ranging non-monetary relief under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Attorney General argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant such relief as it would intrude on the executive branch's powers.

The plaintiff, Ebrahim Toure, contended the motion was procedurally incorrect and that his claims for Charter relief were not plain and obvious to fail.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that Rule 21.01(1)(b) applies only to "causes of action" and not to "claims for relief" or "remedies." The court also granted the Attorney General an extension of time to file a statement of defence.

The applicant, detained for nearly seven years under an immigration removal order, brought a habeas corpus application challenging the legality of his continued detention.

The court found that while the detention was of significant duration, it was reasonable and Charter-compliant given the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate in establishing his true identity and obtaining necessary travel documents.

The court emphasized that the applicant's lack of cooperation was the primary cause of the prolonged detention, and the administrative review process was fair.

The application was dismissed, but without prejudice to future reconsideration if progress towards obtaining travel documents stalled.

The appellant sought habeas corpus relief and Charter remedies regarding his immigration detention.

The application judge dismissed the habeas corpus application but granted section 24(1) relief for a section 12 Charter breach, ordering the appellant's transfer from a maximum security provincial facility to an immigration detention centre.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal and allowed the respondent's cross-appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish a section 12 breach and that the application judge erred in his analysis of the legal test and evidentiary foundation required for such a claim.

The applicant, a foreign national subject to a removal order, applied for habeas corpus after being detained in a maximum security provincial jail for over four years pending removal.

The court found that while the length of detention was exceptional, its duration was not uncertain because the applicant's recent cooperation provided a reasonable prospect for removal, thus not violating sections 7 and 9 of the Charter.

However, the court held that detaining the applicant in a maximum security facility with frequent lockdowns, rather than an immigration holding centre, was grossly disproportionate to his flight risk and constituted cruel and unusual treatment under section 12 of the Charter.

The court ordered his immediate transfer to an immigration holding centre.