Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-18-56-00MO Court File No.: CR-18-57-00MO Court File No.: CR-18-74-00MO Date: 2018 Oct 30

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Terry Thompson, Applicant – and – Attorney General of Canada and the Warden of Collins Bay Institution, Respondents

Counsel: Applicant, self-represented Joanie Roy, Counsel, for the Respondents

Heard: October 19, 2018 at Kingston

Before: MacLeod-Beliveau J.

Habeas Corpus Decisions

[1] The applicant is a self-represented inmate who has commenced a total of five applications for habeas corpus in three court files: one application in file CR-18-56-OOMO; one application in file CR-18-57-OOMO; and three applications within file CR-18-74-OOMO. In these applications, the applicant seeks to challenge: his access to justice; a historic transfer from maximum security Atlantic Institution to maximum security Saskatchewan Institution; a historic placement in segregation at the Quebec Regional Detention Centre; a lack of access to the grievance process within the institution; and his inmate security assessment and classification by the institution.

[2] These written reasons are supplementary and replace the brief oral reasons given on the record on October 19, 2018.

Result:

[3] The five applications for habeas corpus are summarily dismissed without costs.

Analysis:

Title of Proceedings

[4] Counsel for the respondents request that the title of proceedings be amended to correct the name of the respondents as properly, the Attorney General of Canada and the warden of the institution where the applicant is detained in custody, namely, the Warden of Collins Bay Institution.

[5] Section 23 (1) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-50, s. 1; 1990, c.8, s. 21 provides that the proper name of the respondents in an application for habeas corpus are the Attorney General of Canada and the warden of the institution where the inmate is detained at the time of the bringing of the application for habeas corpus, as an agency of the Crown. As the applicant is presently detained at Collins Bay Institution in Kingston, Ontario, the relief as requested is granted. The title of proceedings is amended in these three court files accordingly to correctly name the respondents as the Attorney General of Canada and the Warden of Collins Bay Institution.

Motions to Dismiss the Applications Summarily

[6] All five matters were brought before the court today to be dealt with together in response to motions for summary dismissal brought by the Crown. The respondent brings a motion in each of these matters for an order dismissing the applicant’s applications for habeas corpus on the basis that this court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter.

[7] In order to invoke the court’s jurisdiction of habeas corpus, the applicant must first establish that he has suffered a deprivation of liberty. If the applicant fails to prove that he has suffered any deprivation of liberty, there is no remedy in habeas corpus and the court’s jurisdiction in habeas corpus is not engaged.

[8] I rely on the summary dismissal rules set out in the Criminal Proceedings Rules for the Superior Court of Justice (Ontario). Rule 6.11 (2) provides:

(2) Upon application by the respondent that a notice of application does not show a substantial ground for the order sought, a judge may, if he or she considers that the matter is frivolous or vexatious and can be determined without a full hearing, dismiss the application summarily and cause the applicant to be advised accordingly.

[9] This court has repeatedly held that lateral transfers from one maximum security institution to another maximum security institution does not amount to a deprivation of liberty. Conditions of detention, including access to legal work, access to justice, without more, do not constitute a deprivation of liberty. No jurisdiction in habeas corpus lies to review the grievance or inmate security classification system within a federal institution. Habeas corpus is only relevant to current and ongoing detention, and does not apply to historic detentions as claimed by the applicant.

[10] The relief sought by the Crown is granted. All five of these habeas corpus applications are summarily dismissed as being frivolous and vexatious under Rule 6.11(2) of the Criminal Proceedings Rules for the Superior Court of Justice (Ontario), the court having no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.

Costs:

[11] The Crown seeks costs in the modest amount of $500.00 against the applicant given the lack of merit in his applications, the inherent risk in bringing unsuccessful applications for habeas corpus, and the need to deter frivolous applications by the applicant in the future. The Crown estimates its total costs to date are in excess of $3,000.00 including appearing on the motions. Costs in these types of cases can be a valid consideration.

[12] As held by Mew, J in Severin v. Bath Institution, 2018 ONSC 6096, released October 15, 2018, the Crown is entitled to bring an application under Rule 6.11(2) in writing as the rule’s purpose is to deal with these types of applications without a full hearing taking place, and without a production order being issued for the inmate, unless the court orders otherwise.

[13] Motions for summary dismissal on clearly frivolous applications for habeas corpus where the court lacks jurisdiction to make the order sought, made in writing by the Crown, are to be encouraged and would reduce costs.

[14] I have warned the applicant that future frivolous applications for habeas corpus made by him could result in costs being awarded against him. On this occasion, however, I am not prepared to award costs against the applicant who is impecunious.

Conclusion:

[15] The applicant’s five applications for habeas corpus are dismissed without costs. The applicant’s production orders for November 16, 2018 and December 14, 2018 are rescinded and set aside.

Honourable Madam Justice Helen MacLeod-Beliveau

Released: October 30, 2018