Kathryn Hucal

The applicants, independent private associations of RCMP members, challenged the constitutionality of provisions excluding RCMP members from the Public Service Labour Relations Act and establishing the Staff Relations Representative Program (SRRP).

The application judge found that the SRRP violated s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Attorney General's appeal, holding that s. 2(d) protects the right to collective bargaining only in a derivative sense, and it was not effectively impossible for RCMP members to meaningfully exercise their freedom of association.

The cross-appeal regarding freedom of expression and the exclusion from the PSLRA was dismissed.

The appellant, the Attorney General of Canada, brought a motion to stay the declaration of invalidity of s. 96 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations pending the outcome of the appeal.

The appeal had been adjourned pending the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Fraser v. Ontario (A.G.).

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Court of Appeal granted the stay, expiring 30 days after the release of the Fraser decision.

However, the court imposed conditions requested by the respondents to allow the Associations to communicate with employees using internal systems and property without interference.

The appellants, minimum-security prisoners serving life sentences, appealed the dismissal of their application for habeas corpus.

They challenged their impending transfer from a small minimum-security facility to a larger multi-level institution, arguing the transfer would deprive them of their residual liberty interest due to increased perimeter security and movement restrictions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the differences between the facilities were minimal and did not constitute a substantial change in the conditions of incarceration or a deprivation of any residual liberty interest.

The appellants, serving life sentences for murder, applied for habeas corpus to challenge a new policy by the Commissioner of Corrections that automatically classified them as maximum security.

The motion judge declined to exercise jurisdiction, holding that the Federal Court was the appropriate forum.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that while provincial superior courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus applications regarding prison conditions, they should generally decline to exercise it when the application essentially challenges a federal statutory power that is subject to judicial review in the Federal Court, absent exceptional circumstances.