Sarah Mary Cheshire

The applicant, a federal inmate, sought a writ of habeas corpus challenging her security reclassification from medium to maximum and her involuntary transfer from Grand Valley Institution for Women (GVI) in Ontario to Nova Institution for Women (Nova) in Nova Scotia.

While the security reclassification issue became moot as she was reclassified to medium, the core of the application concerned whether the inter-provincial transfer constituted a deprivation of residual liberty and if the transfer decision was reasonable and procedurally fair.

The court found that a lateral transfer between maximum security institutions, even inter-provincial, does not constitute a deprivation of residual liberty, as it does not impose a more restrictive physical constraint or loss of more than mere privileges.

The court also found the transfer decision to be reasonable, based on evidence of the applicant's continued attempts to introduce contraband, and procedurally fair, as the "gist" of confidential information was provided as permitted by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The defendants challenged the sufficiency of a search warrant that led to their arrest on narcotics and weapons offences.

The court upheld the warrant, finding reasonable grounds existed for the search at 110-90 Carden Street in Guelph.

The analysis considered nine confidential informants with varying degrees of reliability, prior criminal records of the defendants, and extensive surveillance evidence corroborating drug trafficking activity at the location.

The application to quash the warrant was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with serious offences including robbery with a weapon and sexual assault, sought a bail review under section 520 of the Criminal Code.

He argued that a material change in circumstances had occurred due to an increased frequency of seizures while in custody and a new release plan incorporating electronic monitoring.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the medical evidence was not significant enough to alter the initial balancing exercise and that the addition of electronic monitoring did not cure the unsuitability of the proposed sureties.

The court further noted that even if a material change existed, detention remained justified on secondary and tertiary grounds.