Valeriya Sharypkina

Six organizations brought motions for leave to intervene in an appeal from an order dismissing the certification of a proposed class action regarding the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in the child welfare system.

The motion judge granted leave to intervene to the Anishinabek Nation, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Chiefs of Ontario, and the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, finding they would provide useful and unique perspectives on the issues raised on appeal.

The motions by the Hiawatha First Nation and Nigig Nibi Ki-win Gamik were dismissed because their proposed submissions would improperly expand the scope of the appeal and the evidentiary record.

The moving party brought a motion to strike the respondents' action, which sought declarations that the government failed in its duty under the Genocide Convention to prevent a foreign state from committing an alleged genocide.

The respondents also alleged violations of their sections 7 and 15 Charter rights.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that the claims were non-justiciable as they involved the exercise of Crown prerogative in foreign affairs and international relations.

The court also found no reasonable prospect of success for the Charter claims, noting a lack of causal connection for section 7 and that discretionary immigration policies do not ground a section 15 claim.

Two African-Canadian federal inmates serving life sentences for second-degree murder challenged the cancellation of their Escorted Temporary Absences (ETAs) granted by the Parole Board of Canada.

The ETAs were cancelled following an internal misconduct hearing where the same correctional officer who investigated the alleged contraband incident also adjudicated the hearing.

The Crown brought a motion for summary dismissal, arguing that the cancellation of ETAs does not constitute a deprivation of liberty and therefore habeas corpus is unavailable.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondents raised legitimate grounds for questioning the legality of their detention based on procedural fairness concerns and that the matter should proceed to a full hearing.