Nicholas Pope

Mohamed Mahjoub, subject to a security certificate and deportation order, sought habeas corpus in the Superior Court to challenge the indefinite conditions of his release, arguing Charter breaches.

The Minister moved to stay the application, citing lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, the existence of an adequate appeal route and the comprehensive nature of the IRPA security certificate scheme (Peiroo exception).

The motion judge granted the stay.

Mahjoub appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the IRPA's security certificate review process, with its specialized Federal Court judges and special advocate system, constitutes a comprehensive and advantageous scheme for reviewing detention conditions, thus precluding habeas corpus, even though the motion judge erred regarding the adequacy of the appeal route.

The plaintiff, Margaret Godard, sought partial indemnity costs after settling her claim against Intelcom Courier Canada Inc. for $70,000, four days before trial.

The court was tasked with fixing costs, applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than Rule 58, as the parties had agreed to have costs fixed by a judge.

The court considered the principle of indemnity, reasonable expectations, and proportionality.

It found the plaintiff's costs claim to be reasonable overall, with a minor deduction of $497.17 for expert travel expenses that were not incurred.

The court fixed costs at $70,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, finding this amount struck an appropriate balance given the circumstances, including Intelcom's late acceptance of the settlement offer and its conduct during litigation.

This appeal concerned an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant, a medical resident, sued an investigation firm and its investigator for defamation based on executive summaries of a workplace harassment investigation.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the summaries related to a matter of public interest, were protected by qualified privilege, and lacked evidence of malice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, confirming that the expressions related to public interest due to the nature of the educational institution, media attention, and public safety concerns, and were protected by qualified privilege.