Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: 24-1106809
Date: 2025/06/20

Between

His Majesty the King
Respondent

– and –

Andre Ducic
Applicant

Moiz Karimjee, for the Crown
Will Murray and Rylie Wills, for the Applicant

Heard: June 19, 2025

First Stage Ruling on Habeas Corpus Application

Phillips J.

Introduction

[1] Mr. Andre Ducic brings a habeas corpus application (along with an assertion that the Court should strike two Criminal Code sections as non-compliant with the Charter).

[2] A habeas corpus application involves two stages. First, the imprisoned person must show that circumstances exist that warrant inquiry into the lawfulness of his imprisonment. If that threshold is met, the matter moves to a second stage where the officials responsible for the imprisonment are called upon to explain the lawful basis upon which they have been holding the man in jail. In this way, the court performs the important function of ensuring that those who are imprisoned by the state are deprived of their liberty only in accordance with the rule of law.

[3] Along with other relevant materials, Mr. Ducic has filed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) dated April 15, 2025.

Lawfulness of Confinement

[4] On the information before the court, the lawfulness of this man's recent prolonged confinement in our community's prison is of concern. Without firmly declaring as much, on a prima facie basis, it would appear that he has been held at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre (OCDC) in a manner inconsistent with the disposition order made by the ORB on April 15, 2025. In fact, I am unable to easily discern the lawful authority under which Mr. Ducic was imprisoned at the OCDC from that date onward.

[5] I am persuaded that this is an appropriate instance in which to issue a writ of habeas corpus so that a full inquiry into the lawfulness of Mr. Ducic's recent state of imprisonment may occur.

Second Stage and Onus

[6] The matter shall move to the second stage, with the onus on the authorities who held Mr. Ducic at OCDC. The question is: was Mr. Ducic imprisoned in accordance with lawful authority?

[7] Natural justice requires that the court hear from the involved state authorities in order to responsibly delve into the circumstances. While this list is not meant to constrain the parties from marshalling whatever evidence they wish, it is ordered that the following participants in the local administration of justice appear before the court in a position to explain the lawful authority under which Mr. Ducic was held at the OCDC:

1. The Crown Attorney of Ottawa, or his designate;
2. The Superintendent of the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre or his or her designate;
3. The President and CEO of the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group, otherwise known as the Royal Ottawa Hospital, or his or her designate.

[8] As a courtesy, this ruling, along with a copy of the Application and attached materials before the court, shall be conveyed to the Chair of the Ontario Review Board.

Mootness and Oversight

[9] I am aware that Mr. Ducic was transferred from the jail to the hospital on the morning of June 19, 2025. Nonetheless, I do not consider the matter to be moot. I say this for a few reasons. First, while mandamus might no longer be immediately pressing, that is not the only relief that the Applicant is seeking. Second, while it is of course good news that a space in the hospital has been found for Mr. Ducic, that result might not be permanent or even long-lasting and is thus not dispositive of the issues highlighted by this Application. Third, and more importantly, I reiterate that the Court has an important oversight function in respect of the lawfulness of imprisonment. Where grounds exist to inquire into possible systemic inadequacies that impact one of the community’s vulnerable populations to the possible detriment of the reputational interests of the administration of justice, the issue cannot just be deemed to go away once the immediate problem is solved in an ad hoc way. Frankly, if the filing of a habeas corpus application is what it takes to have a disposition of the ORB implemented then, rather than a solution, that fact just underscores the potential problem.

Assignment and Next Steps

[10] Finally, I do not consider myself to be seized of the matter. Aside from a preliminary threshold analysis on a paper record involving no credibility analysis, I have not heard any evidence. I am declaring that an inquiry is warranted to be sure, but I should not be understood to have found any fault or to have come to any conclusions about the ultimate question of whether Mr. Ducic’s imprisonment has or has not been lawful. I raise this issue because it would appear that keeping the matter in my hands would cause delay. As the Local Administrative Justice (LAJ) I have determined that the most expeditious way to have this matter heard is to assign it to another judge.

[11] The July 7, 2025, date is hereby vacated. The matter will next appear before Justice London-Weinstein at a date to be determined through consultation with the trial coordinator. London-Weinstein J. will determine how the matter shall unfold from there.

The Honourable Justice K. Phillips
Released: June 20, 2025