Mary Jane Kingston

The applicant sought a writ of habeas corpus with certiorari in aid to challenge his re-classification from minimum to medium security and subsequent transfer by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC).

The applicant argued the re-classification and transfer were unreasonable and unlawful due to incorrect file information affecting his Security Classification Scale (SRS) score.

The court found that the deprivation of liberty was reasonable and lawful.

It determined that while an initial error in the SRS score was acknowledged by CSC, the re-classification and transfer were ultimately justified based on a holistic assessment of institutional adjustment, escape risk, and public safety, overriding the SRS score with professional judgment.

The application for habeas corpus was dismissed.

A federal inmate applied for habeas corpus with certiorari in aid challenging an involuntary transfer from a medium security institution to a high security institution following discovery of a sharpened knife in the inmate’s shoe.

The applicant argued the warden’s decision was unreasonable under the standard articulated in Mission Institution v. Khela because a member of the case management team believed the inmate’s explanation that he was unaware of the weapon.

The court held the warden was the statutory decision-maker and that the transfer decision fell within the range of reasonable outcomes based on the safety risks posed by possession of a weapon in a correctional facility.

The existence of a differing opinion among staff did not render the decision unreasonable.

The habeas corpus application was dismissed.

The applicant brought an application for habeas corpus with certiorari in aid challenging a decision by the warden to reclassify him from medium to maximum security within the federal penitentiary system.

He argued that Correctional Service Canada failed to provide adequate disclosure of the case against him, thereby breaching procedural fairness under s. 27 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The court held that in the penitentiary context the duty of disclosure requires only that the inmate receive the gist of the case, not full particulars or disclosure of informer identities or investigative details.

The applicant had been informed of the essential allegations, including concerns about rehabilitation progress and communications intercepts linking him to contraband activity.

The court concluded that the disclosure met procedural fairness requirements and that the warden’s decision was reasonable.