A long-term offender was charged with breaching the residency condition of his long-term supervision order, which required him to reside at a community correctional centre.
The appellant sought to collaterally attack the validity of that residency condition at trial, arguing it exceeded the Parole Board's statutory authority under s. 134.1(2) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and violated his s. 7 Charter rights.
The majority held, applying the Maybrun framework, that Parliament did not intend to permit such a collateral attack because effective review mechanisms — including writing to the Parole Board and applying for habeas corpus — were available to the appellant.
The concurring minority would have permitted the collateral attack given the constitutional dimensions and severity of the potential penalty, but agreed the s. 7 claim failed on its merits because the residency condition was not arbitrary.
The appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.
