Simon Borys

The applicant, a federal inmate, brought a habeas corpus application challenging his security reclassification from medium to maximum and his involuntary transfer to Millhaven Institution.

The transfer was prompted by an incident where the applicant made a threatening remark to a correctional officer.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair due to inadequate information sharing and insufficient reasons.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Correctional Service of Canada's decision was reasonable given the applicant's behaviour and risk factors, and that the process was procedurally fair.

The applicant, a federal inmate serving a life sentence, applied for habeas corpus after being involuntarily transferred from a minimum to a medium-security institution.

The transfer was based on allegations of his involvement in institutional subcultures, which he denied.

The court found that the Correctional Service of Canada failed to meet its disclosure obligations under section 27 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act by not providing the applicant with the Security Reclassification Scale (SRS) information.

This failure rendered the transfer decision procedurally unfair and unreasonable.

The application for habeas corpus was granted, and the applicant was ordered to be returned to a minimum-security institution.

The John Howard Society of Canada (JHSC) brought a motion for leave to intervene as an added party in three joined habeas corpus applications.

The applicants, who are inmates, challenged the denial of their requests to transfer to minimum-security institutions.

The JHSC sought to intervene on the threshold question of whether such a denial constitutes a deprivation of liberty.

The court granted the motion on terms, finding that the JHSC had a genuine interest and could make a useful contribution regarding the constitutional and practical context of transfer decisions.

However, the court restricted the JHSC from participating in the development of the evidentiary record to avoid duplication and prejudice.

The applicants, federal inmates, applied for habeas corpus seeking transfers to minimum-security institutions.

The respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to summarily dismiss the applications as frivolous, arguing that a refusal to transfer to a lower security classification does not constitute a deprivation of liberty.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that jurisprudence is divided on whether such a refusal amounts to a deprivation of liberty, and therefore the applications were not clearly frivolous or abusive on their face.

The applicant, a federal inmate convicted of second degree murder, sought habeas corpus with certiorari in aid requiring his transfer from medium to minimum security.

He argued that maintaining his medium security classification despite favourable psychological reports and recommendations from his case management team constituted an unlawful deprivation of liberty.

The court held that refusal to grant a less restrictive security classification does not amount to a deprivation of residual liberty where the inmate has never previously enjoyed the lower classification.

In any event, the court found the warden’s decision reasonable, given concerns about the inmate’s continued denial of responsibility and its relevance to risk assessment under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Following a successful habeas corpus and certiorari application challenging a correctional institution’s decision to reclassify the applicant from minimum to medium security, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant did not seek costs despite succeeding on the judicial review application.

The court therefore declined to award costs to any party.

The judge also declined to comment on the broader argument that prisoners should never face cost consequences when bringing unsuccessful habeas corpus–type judicial review applications.

The applicant sought judicial review of a correctional decision reclassifying his offender security level from minimum to medium security.

The decision acknowledged that the Security Reclassification Scale may have been inflated due to an inaccurate count of recorded institutional incidents, but correctional authorities failed to address that concern when making the final determination.

The court held that the resulting decision lacked justification, transparency, and intelligibility under the reasonableness standard.

Because the respondent could not demonstrate that the transfer decision fell within the range of acceptable outcomes, the decision was found unreasonable.

The application was granted and the applicant was ordered returned to a minimum security institution.