Sean Stynes

The appellant, who was designated a dangerous offender and given an indeterminate sentence in 1988, appealed the dismissal of his application for habeas corpus.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the original sentencing judge lacked jurisdiction to order a psychiatric remand under the Criminal Code and failed to invoke the Mental Health Act.

Furthermore, the sentencing judge erred by fettering his discretion when he concluded he had no choice but to impose the dangerous offender designation if statutory criteria were met.

The habeas corpus application was granted, the dangerous offender designation was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Superior Court for a fresh sentencing hearing.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec issued a joint decision in three related class actions against the Attorney General of Canada.

Following the approval of a Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol, the parties sought approval for minor typographical corrections and various translated administrative documents, including notice forms and claim forms.

The courts approved the corrections and the submitted documents, and directed the parties to submit the claims administrator's terms of appointment once finalized.

The parties in three related class actions regarding administrative segregation in federal penitentiaries sought court approval for a revised Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol, notices, and forms.

The courts approved the documents but revised the proposed opt-out procedure to ensure that all putative class members detained in administrative segregation after December 12, 2016, who had not previously had an opportunity to opt out, were granted a first-time opportunity to do so.

This is Part 2 of a joint decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec concerning the Brazeau, Reddock, and Gallone class actions.

The courts finalized and approved the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol, which governs the distribution of the aggregate damages award and the procedures for determining individual issues.

The decision addresses submissions from the parties on a provisional draft protocol and resolves a late-arriving dispute between Class Counsel and the Law Foundation of Ontario regarding funding for the individual issues phase by deleting contentious provisions.

This appeal concerned two class actions (Brazeau and Reddock) brought by federal inmates challenging the legality of administrative segregation practices.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the motion judge's finding of liability against Canada for breaches of ss. 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, concluding that the prolonged administrative segregation practices constituted cruel and unusual punishment and lacked independent review.

The court found that Canada's failure to alter its policies despite long-standing criticism met the "clear disregard for Charter rights" threshold for awarding damages.

However, the court set aside the motion judge's order in Brazeau to use aggregate damages for structural changes to penal institutions, deeming it an unjustifiable assumption of judicial control and a misinterpretation of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court also overturned the finding of systemic negligence in Reddock, concluding that Charter damages were the more appropriate remedy.

The appeals were allowed in part, with the Brazeau damages remitted for re-determination and the Reddock negligence finding reversed.

Class counsel brought a motion for approval of their legal fees and disbursements following a successful summary judgment motion that awarded $20 million in aggregate damages for Charter breaches related to the administrative segregation of mentally ill inmates.

The court approved the requested 33.3% contingency fee, totaling $6.66 million plus HST, finding it reasonable given the significant risks undertaken and the substantial success achieved.

The court also approved a $15,000 honorarium for each of the two representative plaintiffs in recognition of their exceptional contributions to the litigation.

The plaintiffs, Christopher Brazeau and David Kift, sought an award of costs totaling $1,164,059.22 in partial indemnity costs and disbursements after a partially successful summary judgment motion in a certified class proceeding against the Attorney General of Canada.

The Federal Government argued for each party to bear their own costs or a significant reduction, citing divided success, reduction in class period, dismissal of certain claims, and abandonment of health care claims during the motion.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $800,000, all-inclusive, comprising $600,000 for legal expenses and $200,000 for disbursements, finding them to be the successful party despite divided success, but adjusting the award due to the abandonment of health care claims and insufficient documentation for disbursements.

The Representative Plaintiffs sought prejudgment and postjudgment interest on a $20 million Charter damages award previously granted for deterrence and vindication in a class action concerning administrative segregation of mentally ill inmates.

The Federal Government opposed the award of interest.

The court determined that Charter damages awarded purely for deterrence and vindication are functionally similar to punitive damages, on which interest is generally precluded by the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.

Alternatively, the court exercised its discretion to disallow interest, emphasizing that the $20 million award was non-compensatory, intended to remedy societal harm and ensure future Charter compliance, rather than to compensate individual class members for pecuniary loss.

Consequently, no prejudgment or postjudgment interest was awarded.

The representative plaintiffs brought a summary judgment motion in a class action on behalf of seriously mentally ill inmates placed in administrative segregation in federal penitentiaries.

The court found that administrative segregation is a form of solitary confinement that causes severe psychological harm to mentally ill inmates.

The court held that the Federal Government breached section 7 of the Charter due to an inadequate review process, and breached sections 7 and 12 by subjecting mentally ill inmates to prolonged administrative segregation (over 30 days involuntary or 60 days voluntary).

The court awarded $20 million in aggregate Charter damages for vindication and deterrence, to be used for structural changes or additional mental health resources.