Julie Chung

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether the statutory requirement that federal election Returning Officers reside in the ridings they administer violates the right to liberty under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The majority held that the right to liberty in section 7 does not extend to a free-standing right to choose one’s residence outside the context of the administration of justice, and dismissed the appeal.

The dissent would have found that the residency requirement was overbroad and infringed section 7, and would have granted the appeal.

The applicant challenged the constitutionality of residency requirements for election officers under the federal Elections Act, arguing they infringed his s. 7 Charter liberty interest by impacting his choice of residence and employment.

The court dismissed the application, finding that choice of residence does not rise to the profound level of personal decisions protected by the s. 7 liberty interest, which is intended for profoundly intimate and personal choices, not economic interests.

The applicant, a federal inmate serving a life sentence, sought habeas corpus challenging his reclassification from minimum to medium security and his involuntary transfer to a medium-security institution.

The transfer was based on his inappropriate interactions with administrative staff, accessing restricted areas, and possession of a contraband cell phone.

The court applied the reasonableness standard of review from Vavilov and found the Warden's decision was justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The court also reviewed a sealed affidavit and concluded the respondent met its procedural fairness and disclosure obligations under s. 27 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a federal inmate, brought a habeas corpus application challenging his security reclassification from medium to maximum and his involuntary transfer to Millhaven Institution.

The transfer was prompted by an incident where the applicant made a threatening remark to a correctional officer.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair due to inadequate information sharing and insufficient reasons.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Correctional Service of Canada's decision was reasonable given the applicant's behaviour and risk factors, and that the process was procedurally fair.