|
F filed an application seeking relief by way of habeas corpus with certiorari
in aid, pursuant to s482(3)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada and s10(c) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In the alternative, F sought relief in the nature of habeas corpus with
certiorari in aid pursuant to s24(1) of the Charter. While incarcerated
at the Regional Reception Assessment Centre (RRAC), F was given a copy
of his Initial Placement Report that arguably assigned him a medium security
classification. Later, F was given another Placement Report that had been
amended and which resulted in his being transferred from the RRAC to,
and placement within, a maximum-security institution. F took issue with
the manner in which the changes to his Placement Report occurred, arguing
that he was deprived of procedural fairness. The issue dealt with by the
Court centred upon the following question: Does the Court have jurisdiction
in this case to grant relief by way of habeas corpus with certiorari in
aid, or in the alternative, relief in the nature of habeas corpus with
certiorari in aid pursuant to s24(1) of the Charter? Drost J. asserted that
habeas corpus is available to an inmate who has been transferred from
a lesser security institution to a greater security institution. However,
in this case, there was no increase in security. The warden highlighted
the fact that even though it is housed with Matsqui Institution, which
is a medium security institution, the RRAC is a maximum-security institution.
All inmates of the RRAC are treated as maximum-security inmates until
the necessary assessments have been carried out and a decision is made
to the contrary. Since F was transferred from one maximum-security facility
to another and never acquired a status other than that of a maximum-security
inmate, there was no deprivation of liberty by which habeas corpus could
grant relief. The proper course for F to challenge the placement decision
of the CSC in light of his claim of a lack of procedural fairness was
by way of certiorari proceedings in the Federal Court Trial Division.
Drost J. did not agree with F’s alternative submission that even if habeas
corpus is not available from this court, then he is entitled to relief
in the nature of habeas corpus under s24(1) of the Charter. Drost J. concluded
that if this Court lacks jurisdiction to issue habeas corpus, it ought
not to grant similar relief under s24(1) of the Charter. The petition was dismissed.
|
TOP