R. Jeff Anderson

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of inmates in federal penitentiaries who were subjected to suspicionless strip searches.

The plaintiffs alleged that the regulations authorizing these searches in certain situations were ultra vires the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, breached sections 7 and 8 of the Charter, and constituted torts including trespass to the person and intrusion upon seclusion.

The court dismissed all of Canada's objections and granted the motion for certification, finding that the pleadings disclosed causes of action, the class definition was appropriate, the proposed common issues were valid, a class action was the preferable procedure, and the litigation plan was workable.

The defendants brought motions for leave to appeal an interlocutory decision that dismissed their Rule 21 motions to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The plaintiffs, including a former RCMP member, claimed damages for harassment, assault, and sexual assault.

The defendants argued the claims were barred by section 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act because the plaintiff received a pension for PTSD.

The court refused leave to appeal, finding no conflicting case law on the principles for striking pleadings and no good reason to doubt the motion judge's conclusion that it was not plain and obvious the entire claim was barred.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her habeas corpus application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that neither the relevant treaty nor legislation provided any basis to conclude the appellant was unlawfully detained or entitled to relief.

The appellants, employees at the Joyceville prison, brought an action against the Attorney General of Canada after an employee address listing circulated among the inmate population.

The motions judge struck the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of s. 7 of the Charter on a Rule 21 motion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that it was not plain and obvious that the claims could not succeed.

The court held that whether a fiduciary relationship existed and whether the release of private information engaged s. 7 of the Charter were questions best left for trial.

The appellant, a former prison guard, commenced an action against the Crown and several individuals for workplace discrimination, harassment, and defamation.

The motion judge struck the action on the basis that the essential character of the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the grievance procedure under the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the collective agreement, or alternatively the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the essential character of the dispute was workplace discrimination and harassment, which must be resolved through the statutory and collective agreement mechanisms rather than the courts.

The appellants, correctional officers, brought an action against their employer and senior management alleging that a covert operation to stop contraband poisoned their work environment and caused physical and emotional harm.

The defendants successfully moved to strike the claims (except defamation) on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the essential character of the dispute engaged the employer's obligation under the collective agreement to provide a safe workplace, and therefore the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of an arbitrator.

The Court of Appeal issued an addendum to its judgment dated December 4, 2002, to correct erroneous references to section 125(1)(b) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

All such references were deleted and replaced with references to section 125(1)(a)(ii) of the Act.

The judgment remained unchanged in all other respects.

The appellant, serving a six-year sentence for offences including exploding a home-made bomb, appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus application challenging his denial of accelerated parole review (APR).

He argued the warrant of committal was ambiguous and the Correctional Service of Canada lacked sufficient information to deny APR.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the warrant was valid under s. 782 of the Criminal Code and that the sentencing judge's endorsement on the indictment confirmed the appellant was convicted under s. 81(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

This conviction legally excluded him from APR eligibility under s. 125(1)(b) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.