Martin Anderson

The court considers a motion by the Attorney General of Canada for a further extension of the suspension of a declaration of invalidity regarding certain provisions of the Citizenship Act, previously found unconstitutional.

The court reviews the history of prior extensions, the respondent’s reliance on Parliament’s prorogation, and the adequacy of interim measures for rights-holders.

Finding the respondent’s evidence on expanded interim measures insufficient, the court grants a short extension and directs the respondent to file further evidence and argument, with a return date set for April 11, 2025.

The appellant, a Jamaican citizen and former permanent resident of Canada, was detained for five years by the Canada Border Services Agency pending removal to Jamaica following a removal order based on serious criminality.

The appellant brought a habeas corpus application and sought Charter damages under sections 7, 9, and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that his detention was arbitrary, indefinite, and constituted cruel and unusual treatment.

The application judge dismissed the Charter damages claim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no breach of the Charter rights and clarifying that Charter damages claims cannot be joined to habeas corpus applications.

The applicant brought a habeas corpus application seeking release from a five-year immigration detention pending deportation, along with a claim for Charter damages under s. 24(1) for alleged violations of his ss. 7, 9, 10, and 12 rights.

During the hearing, the applicant was deported to Jamaica, rendering the habeas corpus application moot.

The court proceeded to hear the Charter damages claim, finding it had jurisdiction to do so without requiring bifurcated proceedings.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the Charter claims, concluding that the lengthy detention was lawful, subject to regular review, and not grossly disproportionate or cruel and unusual, as the delay was primarily caused by Jamaican authorities' failure to issue a travel document.

The appellants, who had been in immigration detention for lengthy periods awaiting deportation, brought applications for habeas corpus in the Ontario Superior Court.

The application judge declined jurisdiction, finding that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) provided a comprehensive statutory review mechanism as broad and advantageous as habeas corpus.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, holding that where the legality of a continuing lengthy detention of uncertain duration is challenged, the IRPA review process is less broad and less advantageous than habeas corpus.

The Court found that habeas corpus places the onus on the Minister to justify the detention and is available as of right, unlike the discretionary judicial review process under the IRPA.

The applicant, a permanent resident detained as a flight risk and danger to the public under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus application.

Pending the appeal, he brought a motion for a stay of any potential future deportation order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding it premature as no deportation order had yet been made, and holding that the appeal did not raise a serious issue to be tried because the IRPA provides a complete and comprehensive scheme for reviewing detention.

Four applicants sought habeas corpus with certiorari in aid, arguing that their continued immigration detention was unlawful.

The court held that it should decline habeas corpus jurisdiction because the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and its regulations create a complete, comprehensive and expert scheme for detention review, with further judicial review available in the Federal Court.

Applying the Peiroo exception recognized in the habeas corpus jurisprudence, the court found the statutory process to be at least as broad and advantageous as superior court habeas corpus review in this context.

All applications were dismissed, and a post-hearing request to seal one applicant's record was also denied.