Nicholas Dodokin

Foreign nationals released from immigration detention on terms amounting to virtual house arrest sought habeas corpus relief when their application to modify the conditions was rejected.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding that habeas corpus was unavailable because the applicants were not held in custody.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that habeas corpus applies to any deprivation of liberty, not merely incarceration in a custodial facility.

The court remitted the matter to the Superior Court of Justice to determine whether the remaining requirements for habeas corpus were satisfied.

The appellants, Chinese and Dominican citizens detained by the Canada Border Services Agency in immigration proceedings, appealed a Superior Court order dismissing their application for a writ of habeas corpus.

The lower court found no deprivation of liberty and dismissed the application.

The Court of Appeal addressed a jurisdictional issue regarding whether the appeal should proceed to the Divisional Court under section 8(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act or to the Court of Appeal under section 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court held that because the lower court's dismissal was based on a finding of no deprivation of liberty, the statutory criteria in section 8(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act were not met, and therefore the appeal properly lay to the Court of Appeal.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed two decisions granting habeas corpus relief to an individual detained on account of an outstanding deportation order.

The applicant had been detained for approximately 25 months on immigration grounds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision to release the applicant on habeas corpus, finding that the detention was lengthy and of uncertain duration and could no longer be justified as furthering the machinery of immigration control.

However, the Court found that the application judge erred by assuming jurisdiction to supervise any subsequent re-incarceration by immigration authorities.

The Court struck the problematic supervisory clause and provided guidance on appropriate conditions for release in immigration detention cases.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision finding that frequent lockdowns at Maplehurst Correctional Complex violated the Charter rights of two remanded inmates under section 12 (cruel and unusual treatment).

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge had significantly overstated the frequency, duration, and impact of lockdowns affecting the respondents.

The court concluded that while lockdowns occurred more frequently than ideal, they did not rise to the level of cruel and unusual treatment.

The court also found procedural unfairness in the award of damages without notice to the parties and rejected alternative arguments based on sections 7 and 10(c) of the Charter.

The applicants, foreign nationals under house arrest due to immigration proceedings, sought a writ of habeas corpus or modification of their release terms.

The Attorney General of Canada opposed and brought a preliminary motion for a stay based on lack of jurisdiction, arguing that house arrest does not constitute "detention" for habeas corpus purposes.

The court dismissed the application, finding that house arrest, while restrictive, does not amount to detention or a deprivation of liberty in the context of habeas corpus, distinguishing it from jail or imprisonment.

The court noted that the applicants had alternative remedies through the Immigration Division and Federal Court for modifying release terms.

The applicant, Godday Dadzie, sought release via habeas corpus from immigration detention under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

He had been detained since 2014, primarily due to being a flight risk and issues with establishing his identity and country of origin, exacerbated by his lack of cooperation.

The court considered whether his detention was "very lengthy" and of "uncertain duration," factoring in the nature of the detention facility and the applicant's non-cooperation.

The court found that the applicant's detention was not exceptionally lengthy when accounting for his lack of cooperation, nor was its duration uncertain due to his own obstructionist tactics.

The application was dismissed, as the court concluded that the detention was for a valid immigration purpose, not arbitrary, and consistent with fundamental justice principles.

The applicants, an immigration detainee and a remand detainee housed in a maximum security provincial correctional facility, brought an application for habeas corpus and a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

They alleged that frequent and unpredictable lockdowns, primarily caused by staff shortages, violated their Charter rights.

During lockdowns, inmates were confined to their double-bunked cells for 24 hours a day with limited access to showers, phones, and programs.

The court found that the conditions during the lockdowns, which occurred approximately 50% of the time, constituted cruel and unusual treatment in violation of s. 12 of the Charter.

The court declined to order a systemic remedy or a transfer, but awarded Charter damages of $60,000 to the immigration detainee (payable jointly by Ontario and Canada) and $25,000 to the remand detainee (payable by Ontario).