Todd Sloan

The applicant, an inmate serving a life sentence, applied for habeas corpus challenging his involuntary transfer from a minimum-security to a medium-security institution.

The applicant argued the transfer decision was based on erroneous information and that his misconduct did not warrant a medium-security classification.

The court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found that the Correctional Service of Canada's decision was justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The record demonstrated the applicant's repeated institutional misconduct, including employment suspensions and unauthorized attendance in restricted areas, which supported the finding that he required a moderate degree of supervision.

The application was dismissed, and nominal costs of $500 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant, a federal inmate serving a six-year sentence, applied for habeas corpus challenging a transfer from minimum to medium security.

He alleged the transfer decision was procedurally unfair under s. 27 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act because confidential source information was withheld and insufficient particulars were disclosed.

The court held that correctional authorities may withhold information where disclosure would jeopardize safety, security, or investigations, provided a sealed affidavit explaining the withheld material is supplied to the reviewing court.

The court was satisfied that the sealed affidavit justified nondisclosure and that the applicant had received an adequate summary of the information against him.

The court also found the transfer decision reasonable and declined to interfere with institutional placement decisions.

The applicant sought habeas corpus with certiorari in aid, challenging his reclassification from medium to maximum security and involuntary transfer to a maximum security penitentiary following an institutional drug investigation.

The court held that prison authorities lawfully relied on s. 27(3)(a) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to withhold only information strictly necessary to protect informant safety, while still providing sufficient disclosure to permit an informed response.

The court further held there was no duty to conduct further investigation, the applicant’s written rebuttal was considered, and the Warden’s reasons were adequate.

Although the mandatory meeting contemplated by s. 12(b) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations did not occur, the breach was technical on these facts and did not cause procedural unfairness.

The transfer and reclassification decisions were found reasonable and lawful, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant, a federal inmate, sought habeas corpus challenging his reclassification from medium to maximum security and involuntary transfer to a higher security institution.

The court held that correctional authorities complied with the disclosure regime under s. 27 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and were not required to undertake further investigation into the underlying intelligence.

However, the authorities failed to comply with s. 12(b) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations by not holding the required meeting to explain the reasons for the proposed transfer after allowing time for preparation, and by denying the applicant his elected opportunity to make in person representations.

Those breaches were substantive, not merely technical, and rendered the transfer decision procedurally unfair and unlawful.

Habeas corpus was granted and the reclassification and transfer decision was quashed.