D.G. v. Bowden Institution (Warden) et al., (2016) 612 A.R. 231

• Judge: McDonald, Bielby and Wakeling, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: September 03, 2015
• Citations: (2016), 612 A.R. 231;2016 ABCA 52

D.G. v. Bowden Institution (2016), 612 A.R. 231; 662 W.A.C. 231 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] A.R. TBEd. MR.033

D.G. (respondent/applicant) v. Dave Pelham - Warden of the Bowden Institution and the Parole Board of Canada (appellants/respondents)

(1503-0116-AC; 2016 ABCA 52)

Indexed As: D.G. v. Bowden Institution (Warden) et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

McDonald, Bielby and Wakeling, JJ.A.

March 2, 2016.

Summary:

In January 2012, the applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual interference and one count of inviting sexual touching respecting his stepdaughters. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. The Parole Board of Canada (PBC) granted the applicant day parole in May 2013 and revoked it in November 2013, finding that the applicant had breached the condition that prohibited him from having direct or indirect contact with his stepdaughters. The Appeal Division of the PBC upheld the revocation. The applicant applied for an order of habeas corpus with certiorari in aid, alleging that the revocation was unlawful and procedurally unfair. The Attorney General of Canada applied to dismiss the application, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the Corrections and Conditional Release Act provided a comprehensive and complete statutory scheme for administering review of parole decisions. Pentelechuk, J., dismissed the application to dismiss with oral reasons. The Attorney General appealed Pentelechuk, J.'s decision to take jurisdiction and applied for a stay of the hearing scheduled for the applicant's application. Pentelechuk, J., dismissed the stay application with oral reasons.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2015), 611 A.R. 34, granted the applicant's application for habeas corpus. Under s. 24(1) of the Charter, the court ordered that the applicant be released into the community with conditions to be determined by the PBC. The court also provided written reasons for its dismissal of the Attorney General's earlier applications. The Attorney General's appeal from Pentelechuk, J.'s decision to take jurisdiction proceeded.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, McDonald, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Civil Rights - Topic 3504

Detention and imprisonment - General - Right to habeas corpus - [See Habeas Corpus - Topic 510 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.11

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Habeas corpus - [See Habeas Corpus - Topic 510 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5670.9

Punishments (sentence) - Imprisonment and parole - Parole - Judicial review or appeal - [See Habeas Corpus - Topic 510 ].

Habeas Corpus - Topic 1

General - The Alberta Court of Appeal described the essential features of the writ of habeas corpus - See paragraphs 109 to 132.

Habeas Corpus - Topic 510

Jurisdiction to issue writ - Jurisdiction of provincial superior courts over inmates in federal penitentiaries - The Parole Board of Canada (PBC) revoked D.G.'s day parole - The Appeal Division of the PBC upheld the revocation - D.G. applied for an order of habeas corpus with certiorari in aid - The Attorney General of Canada applied to dismiss the application, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the Corrections and Conditional Release Act provided a comprehensive and complete statutory scheme for administering review of parole decisions - The chambers judge dismissed the application to dismiss - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the Attorney General's appeal - Habeas corpus was the birthright of a free people and a constitutionally recognized remedy under s. 10(c) of the Charter - A superior court had to exercise its jurisdiction and hear a challenge to the legality of a detention unless another statutory protocol offered access to a remedy that was equally as effective as habeas corpus - The Federal Court (FC) judicial review (JR) process was not such a remedy - The FC generally took much longer to adjudicate a JR application than a provincial superior court required to rule on a habeas corpus application - Time was an important consideration to a person whose liberty was abridged - The JR remedy was discretionary while habeas corpus was not; a superior court had to grant a habeas corpus applicant relief if it determined that the applicant's detention was unlawful - Unlike a JR application, the burden of proof in a habeas corpus application favoured the offender - The FC did not sit as regularly as a provincial superior court in each judicial centre; a local presence translated into better access for the habeas corpus applicant - Given the conditions impecunious offenders faced while incarcerated, they generally could not cope very well with the additional burdens the JR process imposed - See paragraphs 20 to 49, 69 to 79 and 105 to 152.

Habeas Corpus - Topic 664

Jurisdiction to issue writ - Alberta courts - Court of Queen's Bench - [See Habeas Corpus - Topic 510 ].

Practice - Topic 8985

Appeals - When appeal available - From interlocutory ruling - The Parole Board of Canada (PBC) revoked D.G.'s day parole - The Appeal Division of the PBC upheld the revocation - D.G. applied for an order of habeas corpus with certiorari in aid - The Attorney General of Canada applied to dismiss the application, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the Corrections and Conditional Release Act provided a comprehensive and complete statutory scheme for administering review of parole decisions - The chambers judge dismissed the application to dismiss and subsequently allowed the habeas corpus application - The Attorney General appealed the dismissal of its application - D.G. argued that the court should decline to hear the appeal because it was from an interlocutory order - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Bielby, J.A., agreed that the court should decline to hear the appeal because it was from an interlocutory order and a separate appeal had been launched from the final order - The two appeals should have been combined - See paragraphs 15 to 19.

Practice - Topic 9138

Appeals - Hearing of appeal - Consolidation of appeals for hearing or hearing of appeals together - [See Practice - Topic 8985 ].

Cases Noticed:

May et al. v. Ferndale Institution et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 809; 343 N.R. 69; 220 B.C.A.C. 1; 362 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 82, consd. [paras. 13; 101, footnote 33; 158].

Khela v. Mission Institution (Warden) et al., [2014] 1 S.C.R. 502; 455 N.R. 279; 351 B.C.A.C. 91; 599 W.A.C. 91; 2014 SCC 24, appld. [paras. 13; 58, footnote 5]; consd. [para. 158].

Strickland et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2015), 473 N.R. 328; 386 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 2015 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 14].

Blais v. Corrections Service Canada (2012), 321 N.S.R.(2d) 198; 1018 A.P.R. 198; 2012 NSCA 109, leave to appeal denied (2013), 447 N.R. 394 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 14, 196]; not folld. [para. 120, footnote 62].

Graham (S.) v. R. (2011), 275 O.A.C. 200; 268 C.C.C.(3d) 517; 2011 ONCA 138, refd to. [paras. 14, 196]; not folld. [para. 153, footnote 108].

Finck et al. v. National Parole Board et al. (2008), 266 N.S.R.(2d) 337; 851 A.P.R. 337; 234 C.C.C.(3d) 513; 2008 NSCA 56, refd to. [para. 14]; not folld. [para. 153, footnote 110].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 14].

Robertson v. Edmonton Chief of Police et al. (2003), 339 A.R. 169; 312 W.A.C. 169; 2003 ABCA 279, refd to. [para. 16].

United Management Ltd. and Genstar Co. v. Calgary (1985), 68 A.R. 77; 35 A.C.W.S.(2d) 348 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Alberta Tank Ltd. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (1987), 53 Alta. L.R.(2d) 190; 5 A.C.W.S.(3d) 249 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Cascade Development Corp. v. B.S.C. Pension Fund Trustee Ltd. (1988), 63 Alta. L.R.(2d) 394; 31 C.P.C.(2d) 40 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Archer (1989), 94 A.R. 323 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Triple Five Corp., [1990] AUD 67 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Canadian Commercial Bank, [1993] 8 W.W.R. 751; 12 Alta. L.R.(3d) 323 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Syncrude Canada Ltd. et al. v. Canadian Bechtel Ltd. et al., [1994] 4 W.W.R. 397; 149 A.R. 54; 63 W.A.C. 54 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Paterson et al. v. Hamilton et al., [1996] 7 W.W.R. 257; 181 A.R. 382; 116 W.A.C. 382 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd. et al. v. Amoco Canada Petroleum Co. et al., [2000] A.R. Uned. 451; 2000 ABCA 314, refd to. [para. 16].

Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd. v. Anderson Oil & Gas Inc. - see Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd. et al. v. Amoco Canada Petroleum Co. et al.

Latham v. Canada (Attorney General) (2016), 472 Sask.R. 288; 658 W.A.C. 288; 2016 SKCA 14, refd to. [paras. 23, 204]; not folld. [para. 153, footnote 107].

Armaly v. Correctional Service of Canada et al. (2001), 299 A.R. 188; 266 W.A.C. 188; 2001 ABCA 280, dist. [para. 26]; consd. [para. 63, footnote 7]; refd to. [para. 196].

Woodhouse v. William Head Institution (Warden) (2012), 316 B.C.A.C. 80; 537 W.A.C. 80; 2012 BCCA 45, refd to. [paras. 28, 196]; not folld. [para. 153, footnote 106].

Lord v. Coulter et al. (2009), 266 B.C.A.C. 122; 449 W.A.C. 122; 2009 BCCA 62, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Latham (B.R.) (2009), 324 Sask.R. 87; 451 W.A.C. 87; 244 C.C.C.(3d) 196; 2009 SKCA 26, refd to. [para. 28]; not folld. [para. 153, footnote 107]; agreed with [para. 195].

Marshall v. National Parole Board et al., [2002] A.R. Uned. 169; 54 W.C.B.(2d) 570; 2002 ABCA 185, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Miller, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 613; 63 N.R. 321; 14 O.A.C. 33; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 9, refd to. [paras. 30; 110, footnote 51].

John v. National Parole Board (2011), 303 B.C.A.C. 264; 512 W.A.C. 264; 270 C.C.C.(3d) 355; 2011 BCCA 188, leave to appeal denied (2011), 430 N.R. 392 (S.C.C.), not folld. [paras. 32; 153, footnote 106]; refd to. [para. 196].

Steele v. Mountain Institution, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1385; 6 W.W.R. 673; 121 N.R. 198, refd to. [paras. 34; 102, footnote 34; 186].

Spindler et al. v. Millhaven Institution (Warden) (2003), 175 O.A.C. 251; 15 C.R.(6th) 183 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Hickey v. Kent Institution (Director) et al. (2003), 176 B.C.A.C. 272; 290 W.A.C. 272; 2003 BCCA 23, refd to. [para. 34].

In re Sproule (1886), 12 S.C.R. 140, refd to. [para. 59, footnote 6].

Lyding v. National Parole Board et al. (1998), 213 A.R. 323 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 95, footnote 28].

Fraser v. Kent Institution (Warden) et al. (1997), 95 B.C.A.C. 312; 154 W.A.C. 312; 6 C.R.(5th) 293 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 95, footnote 28].

Quinn v. Leatham, [1901] A.C. 495 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 103, footnote 38].

Rain v. Canada (Parole Board) et al., [2015] A.R. TBEd. OC.049; 2015 ABQB 639, refd to. [para. 104, footnote 39].

Sommersett's Case (1772), 20 State tr. 1 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 105, footnote 40].

Ex p. Tom Tong (1883), 108 U.S. 556, refd to. [para. 105, footnote 40].

Can v. Calgary Chief of Police et al. (2014), 584 A.R. 147; 623 W.A.C. 147; 315 C.C.C.(3d) 337; 2014 ABCA 322, refd to. [para. 105, footnote 41].

The King v. McAdam, [1925] 4 D.L.R. 33 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 105, footnote 41].

Cox v. Hakes (1890), 15 A.C. 506 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 105, footnote 42].

Bushell's Case (1670), 124 Eng. Rep. 1006, refd to. [para. 105, footnote 42].

In re Storgoff, [1945] S.C.R. 526, refd to. [para. 105, footnote 43].

R. v. Mitchell, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 570; 6 N.R. 389, refd to. [para. 106, footnote 46].

Chaudhary et al. v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al. (2015), 340 O.A.C. 211; 2015 ONCA 700, refd to. [para. 108, footnote 48].

Northfoss v. Welch (1911), 133 N.W. 82 (Minn.), refd to. [para. 108, footnote 48].

The King v. Martin (1927), 60 O.L.R. 577 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 110, footnote 49].

Re Isbell, [1930] S.C.R. 62, refd to. [para. 110, footnote 51].

Jones v. Cunningham (1963), 371 U.S. 236, refd to. [para. 110, footnote 51].

Goldhar v. The Queen, [1960] S.C.R. 431, refd to. [para. 114, footnote 55].

Kempf v. Kempf, [1945] 3 W.W.R. 614 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 114, footnote 55].

Bizon v. Bizon et al., [2014] 7 W.W.R. 713; 572 A.R. 49; 609 W.A.C. 49; 2014 ABCA 174, refd to. [para. 119, footnote 59].

Richards v. Springhill Institution (Warden) et al. (2015), 359 N.S.R.(2d) 59; 1133 A.P.R. 59; 324 C.C.C.(3d) 135; 2015 NSCA 40, refd to. [para. 121, footnote 64].

Secretary of State for Home Affairs v. O'Brien, [1923] A.C. 603 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 121, footnote 65].

Re Weatherall (1901), 1 O.L.R. 542 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 125, footnote 69].

Peiroo v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1989), 34 O.A.C. 43; 69 O.R.(2d) 253 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 136, footnote 85].

Ex p. Sternig (1974), 3 O.R.(2d) 292 (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 136, footnote 86].

Shin Shim v. The King, [1938] S.C.R. 378, refd to. [para. 137, footnote 87].

The Queen v. MacKay (1956), 114 C.C.C. 107 (N.S. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 137, footnote 88].

Maragos v. Deguise (1941), 77 C.C.C. 227 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 137, footnote 88].

Chalifoux v. Driftpile First Nation, 2000 CarswellNat 4394 (Adjudicator), refd to. [para. 138, footnote 90].

Knopp v. Westcan Bulk Transport Ltd., 1994 CarswellNat 2804 (Adjudicator), refd to. [para. 138, footnote 90].

St. Anne Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co. v. Canadian Paper Workers Union, Local 219, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 704; 68 N.R. 112; 73 N.B.R.(2d) 236; 184 A.P.R. 236, refd to. [para. 138, footnote 90].

Shell Oil Co. v. United States (2014), 751 F. 3d 1282 (D.C. Cir.), refd to. [para. 150, footnote 105].

Lena v. Donnacona Prison, 2011 QCCA 140, not folld. [para. 153, footnote 109]; refd to. [para. 196].

Latham v. Canada (Solicitor General) (2004), 264 F.T.R. 190; 2004 FC 1585, refd to. [para. 174].

Counsel:

N.J. Whitling, for the respondent;

D.E. Charlton, for the appellants.

This appeal was heard on September 3, 2015, before McDonald, Bielby and Wakeling, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The judgment of the court was delivered at Edmonton, Alberta, on March 2, 2016, and included the following opinions:

Bielby, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 54;

Wakeling, J.A., concurring in the result - see paragraphs 55 to 155;

McDonald, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 156 to 211.