SHOEMAKER v CANADA (DRUMHELLER INSTITUTION), 2018 ABQB 851
1.2: Purpose and intention of these rules
3.16: Originating application for judicial review: habeas corpus
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
10.29: General rule for payment of litigation costs
The Applicant applied for an Order in the nature of habeas corpus pursuant to Rule 3.16. The Application arose as a result of the decision by the acting warden of the medium security Drumheller Institution to reassess the Applicant and transfer him to the maximum security Edmonton Institution.
Yamauchi J. reviewed the facts leading to the Application, as well as the law of habeas corpus. His Lordship found that the Application was an appropriate habeas corpus Application for the Court to review. Accordingly, it should not be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68 or reviewed by the Court’s Accelerated Habeas Corpus Review Procedure. However, after considering the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in habeas corpus proceedings, the procedural fairness of the acting warden’s decision, and the reasonableness of that decision, Justice Yamauchi found that the habeas corpus Application should be dismissed.
Yamauchi J. then noted that in all civil proceedings, the successful party is presumptively due Costs pursuant to Rule 10.29(1). His Lordship reviewed case law pertinent to the abuse of habeas corpus procedures, including Loughlin v Her Majesty the Queen, 2018 ABQB 45 (CanLII), where Shelley J. remarked that an Applicant’s failure to be specific about the detention and illegality being alleged results in the failure to meet obligations arising from Rules 1.2(2)(a) and 1.2(3)(a).
Justice Yamauchi then noted that the Application at issue was problematic. Certain of the allegations in the Originating Application were contradicted by the evidence presented by the Applicant to the Court; the Applicant advanced (and then abandoned) remedies that are not available through habeas corpus; and the Applicant alleged that the Respondent’s materials were designed to mislead the Court. Because of this, Yamauchi J. held that the Applicant’s Costs should be somewhat elevated as compared to the Costs sought by the Respondent, in the amount of $1,000. Noting that the Respondent did not seek such elevated Costs, the Court simply ordered that the Applicant pay $1,000 in Costs to the Respondent.View CanLII Details