Max Binnie

The applicant imported oil country tubular goods and was assessed anti-dumping duties by the CBSA under the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA).

To appeal the assessment, SIMA required the applicant to first pay the outstanding duties.

The applicant challenged the constitutionality of these appeal payment provisions, arguing they violated section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 by barring access to courts due to undue hardship, section 12 of the Charter by imposing cruel and unusual treatment, and section 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the provisions did not violate section 96 as the applicant failed to prove undue hardship, did not constitute cruel and unusual treatment under the Charter, and did not infringe the Bill of Rights, as the provisions were valid federal legislation.

The appellant, imprisoned as a dangerous offender for over 30 years, launched a habeas corpus application challenging the validity of his detention and warrant of committal.

The application judge dismissed the application summarily on a motion by the respondent, finding it was plain and obvious the application could not succeed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the application should not have been dismissed without a full hearing on the merits.

The court found that the application judge misapplied civil procedure rules to a criminal matter and that the appellant's grounds were arguably unique and not frivolous or vexatious.

The respondents brought a motion to stay the applicant's Charter challenge to the sex offender registry pending the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in a similar case, G. v. Attorney General for Ontario.

The applicant, who was found not criminally responsible and granted an absolute discharge, argued his case presented distinct legal arguments and a more compelling factual scenario.

The court granted the stay, finding that the two matters shared significant common questions of law and fact, and that a stay would prevent inconsistent dispositions, save judicial resources, and avoid a multiplicity of proceedings without causing undue prejudice to the applicant.

The plaintiff, an American citizen residing in Georgia and unable to enter Canada due to a criminal record, brought a motion for examinations for discovery to be conducted by video conference.

The defendant opposed, arguing for in-person examination to assess credibility or, alternatively, for plaintiff's counsel to participate by video while defendant's counsel attended in person.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding that video conferencing was the most just, cost-effective, and expeditious method, consistent with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court emphasized that the defendant failed to provide evidence of the plaintiff's lack of credibility or any disadvantage from a video examination.

An inmate brought an application for habeas corpus challenging the Correctional Service of Canada's decision to reclassify and transfer him from a medium security institution to a maximum security institution.

The inmate argued the decision lacked legislative authority under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and violated s. 7 of the Charter as arbitrary and grossly disproportionate.

The court reviewed the administrative record and applied the reasonableness framework set out in Mission Institution v. Khela, emphasizing deference to prison authorities in matters affecting institutional security.

The court found the decision was justified by repeated inappropriate conduct toward correctional staff and aggressive behaviour during a segregation escort.

The transfer decision was held to fall within the range of acceptable outcomes supported by the evidence and governing legislation.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding his security level on habeas corpus.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because the appellant had already been moved to the level of security he sought, noting that alternate remedies exist for concerns relating to his corrections record.

The applicant, a federal inmate serving a life sentence for first degree murder, sought habeas corpus with certiorari in aid challenging a prison decision increasing his security classification and transferring him from a medium to a maximum security institution.

He argued the decision was unlawful because the Correctional Service of Canada failed to disclose sufficient information to permit him to respond to allegations linking him to an inmate assault, contrary to s. 27 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court held that inmates are not entitled to full Stinchcombe‑level disclosure in institutional administrative decisions and that only sufficient disclosure to understand the case to meet is required.

The court found that the applicant received the gist of the allegations and that additional information could properly be withheld to protect confidential informants and institutional security.

The warden’s decision was supported by a reasonable belief that the transfer was necessary for the orderly administration of the institution.

The respondent sued the Attorney General of Canada for false imprisonment after being held in custody at a federal penitentiary pursuant to an order to produce.

The appellant moved for summary judgment, arguing it was protected by statutory immunity, but the motion judge dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal and granted summary judgment, holding that correctional authorities are immune from civil liability under section 142 of the Courts of Justice Act and section 8 of the Public Authorities Protection Act when acting in good faith in accordance with a court order.