3 total
Maximum-security transfer quashed due to inadequate disclosure and procedural unfairness.
A federal inmate brought a habeas corpus application challenging a decision by prison authorities to reclassify and involuntarily transfer him from medium security to maximum security.
The inmate argued that correctional authorities improperly withheld information relied upon in the transfer decision under s. 27(3) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
The court reviewed sealed materials and compared them with the summaries provided to the inmate.
It found that important information was not disclosed in gist form and that the reliability of sources had not been adequately addressed as required by governing jurisprudence.
The court held that these failures rendered the decision procedurally unfair and unlawful.
Action not dismissed where production failures were not intentional or abusive.
The defendant Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s action for failure to comply with documentary production obligations and court‑ordered timetables under the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The defendant argued the plaintiff had repeatedly breached production orders over many years and had effectively manipulated the court process.
The court held that although the plaintiff had not fully complied with certain production orders, the record demonstrated ongoing document production and substantial efforts by counsel to comply.
The alleged prejudice arising from delay was largely speculative and unsupported by evidence.
The court concluded the plaintiff had not abused the court process and that dismissal was unwarranted.
Appeal regarding documentary production and informant privilege redactions dismissed.
The appellants appealed an order upholding a master's decision concerning documentary production, redactions, and costs.
The appellants argued the respondents' motion to the master was an impermissible attempt to vary a prior order and sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding informant privilege.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the master's prior order contemplated protective terms for productions and the fresh evidence did not defeat the informant privilege claim.
The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.