The Court of Appeal set aside an order for treatment forthwith pursuant to s. 672.58 of the Criminal Code for the purposes of making a detained accused fit for trial. The Court held the order to be improper on the basis that the hospitals did not have the necessary facilities available and did not provide consent to the order pursuant to s. 672.62 of the Code. The consent requirement in the Code did not violate s. 7 of the Charter despite the fact that concerns regarding the patient’s liberty and security of the person were triggered when such an order was made. The Court held that even if an accused’s rights are deprived, the consent requirement ensures that the deprivation occurs in a manner that accords with the principles of fundamental justice.

24. July 2012 0
Administrative law – Mental health facility – Treatment plans –  Statutory provisions – Criminal Code – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Life, liberty or security of the person – Prisons – Transfer of inmates – Judicial review –  Compliance with legislation –  Procedural requirements and fairness Centre for Addiction and Mental Health v. Ontario, ...

The appellant warden of Mission Institution was unsuccessful in her appeal of a chambers decision which ordered that the respondent inmate be returned from Kent Institution to Mission Institution

27. December 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Prison warden – Prisons – Transfer of inmates – Judicial review –  Investigations – Disclosure – Test – Procedural requirements and fairness – Remedies – Habeas corpus – Certiorari Khela v. Mission Institution, [2011] B.C.J. No. 2111, 2011 BCCA 450, British Columbia Court of Appeal, November 9, 2011, ...

The court allowed the applicant’s habeas corpus application and thereby ordered the applicant to be transferred back to his previous medium-security facility. A writ of habeas corpus is issued as of right where the applicant establishes there is cause to doubt the lawful nature of his detention. The respondents conceded that the transfer to a higher security level institution constituted a deprivation of residual liberty, and thus the onus rested with the respondents to demonstrate the legality of their decision to transfer the applicant. The respondents failed to prove that the statutory and common law standards of procedural fairness, and in particular, the obligation to make full disclosure to the plaintiff, were met in regard to the transfer decision.

27. July 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Prisons – Transfer of inmates – Remedies – Habeas corpus – Statutory provisions – Judicial review – Evidence – Disclosure – Procedural requirements and fairness – Compliance with legislation – Jurisdiction Khela v. Mission Institution, [2010] B.C.J. No 971, 2010 BCSC 721, British Columbia Supreme Court, May ...

The Appellant facility was successful in arguing, on this appeal, that the Review Board’s disposition was unreasonable and in error because it failed to address the need for interim measures for the detainee, Mr. Rea. There was no practical remedy because the issue was moot.

27. April 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Review Board – Prisons – Transfer of inmates – Statutory provisions – Criminal Code – Mental health facility – Interim measures – Judicial review – Mootness Mental Health Centre Penetanguishene v. Ontario, [2010] O.J. No. 1044, 2010 ONCA 197, Ontario Court of Appeal, March 16, 2010, R.P. ...

A federal prisoner (“Mapara”) was successful in seeking an order in the nature of habeas corpus with certiorari in aid and for an order that he be transferred from the Mountain Institution back to the Ferndale Institution where the Court found that the transfer decision was null and void for want of jurisdiction

27. March 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Prisons – Transfer of inmates – Judicial review – Natural justice – Jurisdiction Mapara v. Ferndale Institution (Warden), [2007] B.C.J. No. 99, British Columbia Supreme Court, January 19, 2007, Scarth J. Mountain Institution is a medium-security federal penitentiary. Ferndale Institution is a minimum-security federal penitentiary. The Warden of Ferndale ...

The Supreme Court of Canada held that federal inmates were entitled to challenge the legality of a decision transferring the inmates from minimum to medium security in a provincial court by way of habeas corpus. In this case, the Court held that habeas corpus should be granted as the Correctional Service of Canada (“CSC”) failed to disclose the scoring matrix for the Security Classification Rating tool upon which the transfer decision had been based.

28. February 2006 0
Administrative law – Prisons – Transfer of inmates – Remedies – Habeas corpus – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Jurisdiction May v. Ferndale Institution, [2005] S.C.J. No. 84, Supreme Court of Canada, December 22, 2005, McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ. The appellant inmates were prisoners serving ...

Starson, who was found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder, had been detained in hospital and unsuccessfully appealed from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) that he should continue to be detained in a medium security unit, on the basis of the Board’s findings that he represented a significant threat to society, and that the disposition of keeping him in medium security was the least onerous disposition, were unreasonable

25. May 2004 0
Administrative law – Prisons – Inmates Not Criminally Responsible for their crimes – Transfer of inmates – Public safety – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Review Board – Evidenciary issues – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter R v. Starson, [2004] O.J. No. 941, Ontario Court of Appeal, March ...

A disposition by the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) allowing an accused found not guilty by reason of insanity and who remained a significant threat to the safety of the public, to be transferred to his country of origin for care and supervision was found unreasonable by the Court of Appeal. In finding that the disposition was unreasonable, the Court held that the existence of a deportation order was irrelevant to the Board’s consideration whether to return a dangerous patient to his native land and should not have been considered.

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Prisons – Transfer of inmates – Deportation orders – Statutory provisions – Criminal Code – Public safety – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Review Board – Judicial review – Jurisdiction R. v. Miller, [2003] O.J. No. 3455, Ontario Court of Appeal, September 10, 2003, Charron, Feldman and Simmons JJ.A. Miller was found not guilty ...

An inmate in a federal institution was unsuccessful on an appeal of a decision of a Supreme Court judge, dismissing an application for a writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction

25. March 2003 0
Administrative law – Prisons – Transfer of inmates – Statutory provisions – Remedies – Habeas corpus – Jurisdiction of court Hickey v. Kent Institution, [2003] B.C.J. No. 61, British Columbia Court of Appeal, January 16, 2003, Rowles, Ryan and Saunders JJ.A. The appellant, an inmate in a federal institution, made application to a judge of the Supreme ...