3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies

Case Summary

The Court considered a habeus corpus Application by the Applicant, McClintic, a prison inmate serving a life sentence for murder. McClintic had been reclassified as a medium security inmate and moved from a Healing Lodge to an Edmonton penitentiary, and was then moved to a penitentiary in Kitchener, Ontario.

Upon receiving the Application, the Court decided to invoke the “show cause” process established in Civil Practice Note 7. That process is invoked when the Court identifies potential significant issues with an Application such that it could be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68. The party filing the Application then has an opportunity to respond in writing to the issues identified and to demonstrate why the Application should continue.

The Court identified two key issues with McClintic’s Application. First, there was a real question whether Alberta had jurisdiction to hear the Application as McClintic was no longer being housed in an Alberta facility. Second, McClintic had filed no evidence in support of her Application. Therefore, there was no basis upon which the Court could make a ruling on the Application.

As a result of these two issues, the Court stayed the Application pending the completion of the Civil Practice Note 7 process. McClintic was invited to submit written submissions addressing the issues with her Application, while the Respondents were permitted to file a written reply in response. Once written submissions were completed by the parties, or, once McClintic failed to file written submissions within the deadline imposed, the Court would render a decision as to whether the Application would eventually be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68.

View CanLII Details