2 total
Provincial superior courts retain habeas corpus jurisdiction for immigration detainees challenging lengthy detentions of uncertain duration.
The appellants, who had been in immigration detention for lengthy periods awaiting deportation, brought applications for habeas corpus in the Ontario Superior Court.
The application judge declined jurisdiction, finding that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) provided a comprehensive statutory review mechanism as broad and advantageous as habeas corpus.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, holding that where the legality of a continuing lengthy detention of uncertain duration is challenged, the IRPA review process is less broad and less advantageous than habeas corpus.
The Court found that habeas corpus places the onus on the Minister to justify the detention and is available as of right, unlike the discretionary judicial review process under the IRPA.
Habeas corpus declined where IRPA provides a complete immigration detention review scheme.
Four applicants sought habeas corpus with certiorari in aid, arguing that their continued immigration detention was unlawful.
The court held that it should decline habeas corpus jurisdiction because the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and its regulations create a complete, comprehensive and expert scheme for detention review, with further judicial review available in the Federal Court.
Applying the Peiroo exception recognized in the habeas corpus jurisprudence, the court found the statutory process to be at least as broad and advantageous as superior court habeas corpus review in this context.
All applications were dismissed, and a post-hearing request to seal one applicant's record was also denied.
