Stewart Edward Phillips

The court awarded full indemnity costs against the plaintiffs after dismissing their claims, which were found to be statute-barred, subject to res judicata and issue estoppel, abuses of process, and collateral attacks.

The claims were deemed devoid of merit and repetitive of earlier unsuccessful actions.

The court emphasized that the claims should never have been brought, especially for a third time, and that the plaintiffs' conduct, including unsubstantiated allegations, delaying tactics, and unrealistic settlement offers, warranted the highest scale of costs.

The appellant appealed the Superior Court's dismissal of his habeas corpus application challenging the revocation of his day parole by the Parole Board of Canada.

The appellant had been released on day parole in April 2016 after serving a sentence for robbery and firearm offences, but his parole was revoked in April 2017 on the basis that he presented an undue risk to society.

The appellant contended he was detained during a parole disciplinary meeting without being informed of his right to counsel, contrary to section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because the appellant had been released on statutory release while the appeal was pending.

The court also set aside the costs order, finding that the habeas corpus application challenging parole revocation was criminal in nature rather than civil, and therefore costs could not be awarded.

The appellant, a former flight attendant employed by Canadian Airlines International Ltd. before its merger with Air Canada in 2000, appealed the dismissal of his application for recognition of seniority by date of hire as a protected right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The appellant challenged the seniority integration decision made through arbitration and confirmed by the Canada Industrial Relations Board, which integrated seniority on the basis of relative position on seniority lists rather than date of hire.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding no infringement of the appellant's Charter rights under sections 7 and 15, and dismissed the appeal.

Mr. Samuel sought habeas corpus with certiorari in aid, alleging a Charter s. 10 violation when his day parole was suspended and he was detained without being advised of his rights or given counsel.

The Attorney General of Canada challenged the Superior Court's jurisdiction, arguing that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) provides a complete, comprehensive, and expert procedure for parole review, including judicial review by the Federal Court.

The court, bound by prior Ontario Court of Appeal decisions, found that the CCRA scheme, including Federal Court judicial review, constitutes such a procedure, falling within the exception articulated in May v. Ferndale Institution.

Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to decline habeas corpus jurisdiction, dismissing the application.