|
M was involuntarily transferred from minimum security to a medium security
setting. The grounds for the transfer were based on allegations that M
was involved in an attempt to bribe a CSC officer. The sole information
disclosed to M regarding the alleged incident was the following: “On 00.08.31
until 00.09.14 a series of events occurred in which you and another offender
attempted to bribe a staff member with $200.00, in exchange for a private
family visit.” M denied any involvement in the alleged incident and filed
an application for judicial review with the Federal Court. The Federal
Court set a hearing date for the following year. M was concerned that
the date set was too time distant as it was much later than a hearing
M had scheduled with the National Parole Board. Hoping to have his challenge
to the transfer and reclassification resolved by a court before his meeting
with the Parole Board, M applied to this court seeking an order for habeas
corpus with certiorari in aid. M argued that the transfer was invalid
because of a violation of procedural fairness. The central issues in this
case were: 1) Did the provincial superior court (in this case the Queen’s
Bench of Alberta) have jurisdiction to grant relief by way of habeas corpus,
and if so, should the court hear the matter considering that the Federal
Court had already set a hearing date? 2) If the answer to the first issue
is “yes,” should M be granted relief? |
|
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench held that it had jurisdiction to hear M’s application for habeas corpus with certiorari in aid. Acknowledging that the Federal Court was a proper, appropriate and effective forum for M’ application, the Queen’s Bench nevertheless decided to exercise its concurrent jurisdiction and hear the habeas corpus application on the basis that M could be prejudiced if made to wait for the Federal Court hearing scheduled to take place at a later date than his hearing with the National Parole Board. Turning to the merits of M’s application, the Court concluded that M was not provided with sufficient information to enable him to know the case to be met. The following particulars were not addressed in the CSC’s disclosure: a) What “series of events” occurred? b) Who was the other “offender”? c) Who was the “staff member”? d) Whose “private family visit” was the subject of the alleged bribe? E) Did the “staff member” make a written report containing the circumstances of the allegations? The notice to M should have contained as much detail as possible to enable him to make an informed response. The application was allowed. An order in the nature of habeas corpus with certiorari in aid was granted, quashing the security reclassification and transfer, and remitting the matter back to the warden.
|
TOP