| Lamer
J. held that the appeal should be dismissed. In the circumstances of this
case, habeas corpus was not available to challenge the validity of the
decision of the National Parole Board to refuse D's day parole. The continuation
of an initially valid deprivation of liberty can be challenged by way
of habeas corpus only if it becomes unlawful. In the context of parole,
the continued detention of an inmate will only become unlawful if he has
acquired the status of a parolee. An inmate acquires that status as of
the moment the decision to grant him parole takes effect. Thus, if parole
is granted effective immediately, he becomes a parolee when the decision
is rendered. If, for some reason, the restriction to his liberty continues,
he may then have access to habeas corpus. If parole is granted effective
at some later date, then the inmate acquires the status of parolee at
that date and not at the date of the decision. In this case, D never became
a parolee and thus had no right to habeas corpus. This was not to say
that the Board had jurisdiction to review its earlier decision or that
it could do so in a way that may have infringed the rules of natural justice
or D's rights under the Charter. However, those issues would have to be
raised on an application under s18 of the Federal Court Act or s24 of
the Charter and were not before the court on an application for habeas
corpus. |
TOP