View source for Habeas Corpus

[[fr:Habeas_Corpus]]
{{Currency2|January|2020}}
{{LevelOne}}{{HeaderPreTrial}}
==General Principles==
{{seealso|Mandamus, Certiorari, and Prohibition}}
Habeas Corpus refers to the common law prerogative writ of relief that challenges the detention of a detainee. 
A prerogative writ is a manner of correcting errors of jurisdiction made by inferior courts as well as correcting failures of natural justice or procedural fairness.<ref> 
{{CanLIIRP|Forsythe|1mjv8|1980 CanLII 15 (SCC)|[1980] 2 SCR 268, 53 CCC (2d) 225}}{{perSCC|Laskin CJ}}
</ref>

This prerogative writ was also imported into section 10(c) of the Charter:
{{quotation2|
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention...
:c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of ''habeas corpus'' and to be released if the detention is not lawful.
|[http://canlii.ca/t/8q7l CCRF]
|{{NoteUpCCRF|10}}
}}

Section 10(c) does not change the law of habeas corpus so much as it constitutionally entrenches it.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Re Day|jt76t|1984 CanLII 5618 (NS SC)|62 NSR (2d) 67 (NSSC)}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Wilson|gbzw0|1986 CanLII 5024 (MB QB)|42 Man R (2d) 222 (Man. Q.B.)}}{{perMBQB|Dureault J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Reimer|gcg0r|1987 CanLII 7125 (MB CA)|47 Man. R. (2d) 156}}{{perMBCA-H|Hall JA}}<br>
</ref>

;Jurisdiction
Superior provincial courts have the ability to hear ''habeas corpus'' applications seeking to review decisions by prison authorities to reduce "residual liberty" for federal inmates.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Shoemaker|j16vs|2019 ABCA 266 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atL|j16vs|7}} ("Provincial superior courts have the jurisdiction, by way of an application for habeas corpus, to review the validity of decisions by prison authorities to reduce the “residual liberty” of a federal inmate")<br>
{{CanLIIRPC|May v Ferndale Institution|1m7f3|2005 SCC 82 (CanLII)|[2005] 3 SCR 809}}
{{perSCC|LeBel and Fish JJ}}<br>
{{CanLIIRPC|Mission Institution v Khela|g69pq|2014 SCC 24 (CanLII)|[2014] 1 SCR 502}}{{perSCC|Lebel J}}{{atsL|g69pq|33| to 34}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Miller|1ftx9|1985 CanLII 22 (SCC)|[1985] 2 SCR 613, 24 DLR (4th) 9}}{{perSCC|Le Dain J}}{{atL|1ftx9|35}}<br>
</ref>
The Superior Courts also have discretion to decline jurisdiction to review under ''Habeas Corpus'' where there exists a "complete, comprehensive and expert procedure for review."<ref>
{{supra1|May v Ferndale Institution}}<br>
</ref>
The Parole Board of Canada is one such form of review.<ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|Blais v Canada (Attorney General)|ft70d|2012 NSCA 109 (CanLII)|1018 APR 198}}{{TheCourtNSCA}}
</ref>

; Burden of Proof
The onus of proof to establish the deprivation rests on the applicant while the onus to establish the lawfulness of the deprivation rests on the detaining authority.<ref>
{{supra1|May}}</ref>

; Requirements

An application for habeas corpus requires: <ref>
{{supra1|May v Ferndale Institution}} at 74</ref>
# a deprivation of liberty and 
# that the deprivation be unlawful.

The writ of habeas corpus requires a "generous and flexible interpretation."<ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|Idziak v Canada (Minister of Justice)|1fs7c|1992 CanLII 51 (SCC)|[1992] 3 SCR 631, [1992] SCJ No 97}}{{perSCC|Cory J}}{{atL|1fs7c|26}}
</ref>

; Timing
A failure to pursue options of appeal within the appropriate time limitation can close access to habeas corpus.<ref>
{{CanLIIRxC|Boviz v Canada (Attorney General)|hr3xk|2018 ABQB 215 (CanLII)}}{{perABQB|Henderson J}}{{atL|hr3xk|18}}<br>
{{CanLIIRPC|Ewanchuk v Canada (Parole Board)|gm4t3|2015 ABQB 707 (CanLII)|AJ No 1219}}{{perABQB|Graesser J}}{{atsL|gm4t3|87| to 88}}, aff’d on other grounds {{CanLII|h3sv2|2017 ABCA 145 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtABCA}}<br>
</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

===Review of Parole Decisions===
Courts should refuse to hear habeas corpus applications that challenge the Parole Board of Canada,<ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|Armaly v Canada (Parole Service)|50cb|2001 ABCA 280 (CanLII)|299 AR 188}}, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 29130 (3 April 2002)<br> 
{{CanLIIRPC|Lee v Attorney General of Canada|hpsk7|2018 ABQB 40 (CanLII)|403 CRR (2d) 194}}{{perABQB|Shelley J}}{{atsL|hpsk7|147| to 151}}<br>
</ref> including parole officers.<ref>
{{CanLIIRxC|Latham v Alberta|hql79|2018 ABQB 141 (CanLII)}}{{perABQB|Henderson J}}{{atsL|hql79|26| to 27}}<br>
</ref>
Such form of review is an abuse of the court's process.<ref>
{{CanLIIRxC|Boviz v Canada (Attorney General)|hr3xk|2018 ABQB 215 (CanLII)}}{{perABQB|Henderson J}}{{atL|hr3xk|22}}<br>
{{supra1|Lee v Attorney General of Canada}}{{atL|hpsk7|151}}<br>
{{supra1|Latham #2}}{{atsL|hql79|28| to 29}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===Review of Bail Decisions===
Absent exceptional circumstances, a decision to deny an application for release on bail pending sentencing is not subject of ''habeas corpus'' review.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Passera|h36cg|2017 ONCA 308 (CanLII)|352 CCC (3d) 478}}{{TheCourtONCA}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Procedure==
The applicant's personal attendance in court is necessary for an application of habeas corpus:
{{quotation2|
; Appearance in person — habeas corpus
774.1 Despite any other provision of this Act, the person who is the subject of a writ of habeas corpus must appear in court in person.
<br>
{{LegHistory00s|2002, c. 13}}, s. 77;
{{LegHistory20s|2022, c. 17}}, s. 50(E).
|{{CCCSec2|774.1}}
|{{NoteUp|774.1}}
}}

{{quotation2|
; Detention on inquiry to determine legality of imprisonment
775 Where proceedings to which this Part applies have been instituted before a judge or court having jurisdiction, by or in respect of a person who is in custody by reason that he is charged with or has been convicted of an offence, to have the legality of his imprisonment determined, the judge or court may, without determining the question, make an order for the further detention of that person and direct the judge, justice or provincial court judge under whose warrant he is in custody, or any other judge, justice or provincial court judge, to take any proceedings, hear such evidence or do any other thing that, in the opinion of the judge or court, will best further the ends of justice.
<br>
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 775; R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.)}}, s. 203.
|{{CCCSec2|775}}
|{{NoteUp|775}}
}}


Provincial Rules of Court will have some direction on the exact process required for making application and responding to one.<ref>
NS: Rule 7 of the [http://www.courts.ns.ca/Civil_Procedure_Rules/documents/cpr_consolidated_rules_16_11_01.pdf Civil Procedure Rules] <br>
ON: Judicial Review Procedure Act, [https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90j01 R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1] and Rule 68 [https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900194 Civil Procedure Rules]<br>
BC: Rule 23-3 Supreme Court Civil Rules, [http://canlii.ca/t/52rqh BC Reg 168/2009]<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Deprivation of Liberty==
; Occupancy of a Cell
The "double bunking" of inmates is generally not considered a from of deprivation of residual liberty.<ref>
See:  {{CanLIIR-N|BRL v Canada|, [2000] F.C.J. No 108}}<br> 
{{CanLIIR-N|Robert Collin v The Solicitor General of Canada|, [1983] 1 F.C. 496}}<br>
{{CanLIIRPC|Piche v Canada (Solicitor General)|g9w21|1989 CanLII 7246 (FCA)|[1989] F.C.J. No 204}}, ''per'' MacGuigan JA<br>
</ref> 
Similarly, housing an inmate in a double occupancy room instead of a usual single occupancy does not engage a deprivation of liberty.<ref>
{{CanLIIRxC|Mennes v Canada (Attorney General)|1vt3j|2008 CanLII 6424 (ON SC)}}{{perONSC|MacDougall J}}
</ref>

;Access to Resources in Custody
The restriction on access to legal research and other aspects of criminal legal proceedings.<ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|MCCargar v Canada|h4l04|2017 ABQB 416 (CanLII)|63 Alta LR (6th) 88}}{{perABQB|Henderson J}}
</ref>

; Bail Conditions
A habeas corpus application cannot be brought to challenge house arrest bail conditions.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Ethier|22s6j|2009 CanLII 11429 (ON SC)|2009 CarswellOnt 1391 (Ont. SCJ)}}{{perONSC|Kane J}}
</ref>

; Sufficiency of Reasons
A decision to suspend parole must be accompanied by reasons. Where reasons are not given, the decision becomes unlawful, jurisdiction is lost, and so is reviewable under ''hebeas corpus''.<ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|Woodhouse v Williams Head Institution|5470|1999 BCCA 432 (CanLII)|[2010] BCJ 1005}}{{perBCCA|Mackenzie JA}}</ref>

An inmate who is transferred to a higher security level of prison must be provided with sufficient information to permit a meaningful opportunity to challenge the allegations or else jurisdiction may be lost.<ref>
''Khela v Mission Institution'', [http://canlii.ca/t/29vhh 2010 BCSC 721] (CanLII), [2010] BCJ 971{{perBCSC|Bruce J}}</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==See Also==
* [[Mandamus, Certiorari, and Prohibition]]
* [[Appeals#Prerogative Writs]]