Kirk Shannon

The appellant, designated a dangerous offender, appealed the Superior Court's dismissal of his habeas corpus application.

He argued the application judge misapprehended his complaint, which was against the Correctional Service of Canada for failing to provide necessary programming, creating a "rehabilitative impasse," rather than against the Parole Board.

The Court of Appeal found the "rehabilitative impasse" argument was not sufficiently raised below.

It upheld the application judge's decision to decline habeas corpus jurisdiction based on the Parole Board's comprehensive review system (the Peiroo exception from May v. Ferndale Institution), but found the application judge erred in also declining jurisdiction based on collateral attack and in using an un-noticed transcript.

Despite the error, the appeal was dismissed as the Peiroo exception was sufficient.

The applicant, Gary Little, brought an application for habeas corpus which was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the respondent's request for costs.

The court found the habeas corpus application to be civil in nature, allowing for a costs award.

Considering it was Little's fourth failed habeas corpus application on related grounds and he had previously been warned about costs, the court exercised its discretion to award costs.

The respondent's claim for $11,101.87 was reduced to a nominal amount of $750.00, which the court found reasonable and proportionate, and ordered Little to pay this amount to the Attorney General of Canada.

The applicant, serving an indeterminate sentence as a dangerous offender, brought an application for habeas corpus seeking unconditional release.

He argued his continued detention was unlawful due to administrative assessments by correctional staff that led the Parole Board to deny him parole.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, declining jurisdiction on the basis that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act provides a complete, comprehensive, and expert procedure for reviewing Parole Board decisions.

The court found the application was an impermissible collateral attack on previous decisions and that the applicant's continued detention was lawful.

The defendants brought a motion for a further and better affidavit of documents, seeking the plaintiff's complete corporate tax returns and financial statements from 2006 to 2012.

The underlying action involved claims for breach of contract and lost opportunity related to two government requests for proposals.

The court found the request for tax returns overbroad and irrelevant, as the plaintiff was not claiming general lost income.

However, the court ordered the production of corporate records relating to the distribution of shares to individuals who worked on the proposals, as the plaintiff claimed it paid workers in shares due to lost profits.

Success being divided, no costs were ordered.