9.14: Further or other order after judgment or order entered

Case Summary

The Applicant previously applied for habeas corpus and obtained an Order mandating that he be returned to his day parole and that an appropriate period for his day parole later be determined. The government parole board failed to properly reinstate the Applicants’ day parole in accordance with the Order. The Applicant then applied for a second order for habeas corpus demanding his immediate release in light of the parole board’s breach of the Court’s previous Order. The Attorney General of Canada (“AG Canada”) argued that the Application was barred by res judicata. AG Canada also argued that the remedies sought by the Applicant would require an Amendment to the original Order, and such amendment was precluded by Rule 9.14.

Justice Pentelechuk noted that Rule 9.14 does not operate to preclude the Court from clarifying, supplementing or working out the terms of an Order, even after it is entered. Her Ladyship went on to find generally that, no legislation, including the Rules of Court, can curtail a Superior Court Justice’s ability to maintain supervision over the enforcement of their earlier Orders.

Pentelechuk J. granted the Applicant’s Order for habeas corpus and directed that he be released forthwith from prison, in accordance with the terms of his statutory release.

View CanLII Details