Morin v. National Special
Handling Unit Review Committee


(1985), 16 Admin. L.R. 264, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 662, 49 C.R. (3d) 26,
23 C.C.C. (3d) 132, 24 D.L.R. (4th) 71 (S.C.C.)

    The issue in this appeal is whether, having regard to the role of habeas corpus and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Canada under s18 of the Federal Court Act in respect of certiorari against any federal board, commission or other tribunal, a provincial superior court has jurisdiction by way of habeas corpus with certiorari in aid to determine the validity of the confinement of an inmate of a federal penitentiary in a SHU, and if such confinement be found unlawful, to order his release into association with the general inmate population of the penitentiary. M had been involuntarily transferred from a maximum-security penitentiary to the SHU on the basis of allegations that he was involved in the murder of a fellow inmate. After a criminal trial, M was acquitted of that murder. M filed an application for habeas corpus with certiorari in aid to determine the validity of his confinement in the SHU with the provincial superior court in Quebec. The Superior Court judge who conducted the murder trial expressed the opinion that the continued confinement of M in the SHU, despite his acquittal, was without foundation and in violation of the rules of natural justice and fairness. He dismissed the application for habeas corpus, however, on the ground that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to issue certiorari in aid of habeas corpus. The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed M's appeal. M appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
    In allowing the appeal, Le Dain J. asserted that the provincial superior courts have jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus to determine the validity of an inmate's detention in a special handling unit despite the fact that the same issue may be determined upon certiorari in the Federal Court. The proper scope of the availability of habeas corpus must be considered first on its own merits, apart from possible problems arising from concurrent or overlapping jurisdiction.
TOP