Shain Widdifield

The appellant, a disbarred lawyer, appealed the dismissal of her habeas corpus application challenging the validity of her warrant of committal.

The application judge had found the application frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting that the arguments had been unsuccessfully raised multiple times before.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appeal, specifically endorsing the application judge's analysis and conclusion, and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant, an inmate at Grand Valley Institution for Women, applied for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of her warrant of committal.

The respondent moved to dismiss the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found that the applicant was attempting to relitigate issues already decided against her by the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal.

The court dismissed the application summarily under the Criminal Proceedings Rules and declined to award costs, noting there is no jurisdiction to award costs in criminal habeas corpus matters.

The applicant, who was previously convicted of fraud, brought an application seeking a declaration that s. 380(1) of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional because it is silent on the mens rea for the offence, allegedly violating the Charter.

The court held a preliminary hearing to determine standing and abuse of process.

The court found that the applicant lacked private interest standing because his conviction was final and the issue was moot for him.

The court also found he lacked public interest standing because the application did not raise a serious justiciable issue and he did not have a genuine interest.

Finally, the court dismissed the application as an abuse of process, finding it amounted to a collateral attack on his prior criminal conviction.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against multiple police services and government entities regarding mass arrests and detentions during the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while some causes of action (like false imprisonment and battery) were properly pleaded against the Toronto Police Services Board, the claims against other defendants failed.

Crucially, the plaintiff failed to satisfy the identifiable class, common issues, and preferable procedure requirements of the Class Proceedings Act due to the highly variable individual conduct of protesters and the impermissible use of subclasses.