Author: Amy Matychuk Page 1 of 4

Amy Matychuk (JD'18, UCalgary Law) is a sole practitioner at Prison & Police Law, where she advocates for the rights of those who have experienced unfair treatment by the prison or police systems in Alberta. More information about her practice is available at prisonpolicelaw.ca.

Federal Court Finds Environment for Inmates at Edmonton Institution for Women not Safe and Healthful Due to Extreme Indoor Temperatures

By Amy Matychuk

On August 11, 2026

In Human Rights, Prison Law

By: Amy Matychuk

Case Commented On: Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies v Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FC 958 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Federal Court Finds Environment for Inmates at Edmonton Institution for Women not Safe and Healthful Due to Extreme Indoor Temperatures

On July 16, 2026, the Federal Court of Canada ruled that the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) must keep records of temperatures in inmate-occupied areas at the Secure (Maximum) Unit of the Edmonton Institution for Women (EIFW) and must seek authorization to install air conditioning in those same areas. The decision was released in the middle of a hot and smoky summer, during which CSC has come under fire for extremely hot living conditions for federal prison inmates. While excessive hot and cold temperatures are certainly not a new issue for CSC facilities, the Federal Court’s specific order that EIFW must track temperatures in inmate living spaces in the EIFW Secure Unit represents an important development for prison justice advocates, who may now have access to information corroborating their clients’ longstanding claims about unliveable temperatures in federal prisons. Further, CSC can no longer rely on a blanket prohibition against installing air conditioning in inmate living areas, a small step toward more livable conditions for inmates.

Dorsey v Canada: A Rare and Necessary Advancement for Prisoners’ Rights

By Amy Matychuk

On December 2, 2025

In Access to Justice, Criminal, Human Rights, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Amy Matychuk

Case Commented On: Dorsey v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 SCC 38 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Dorsey v Canada: A Rare and Necessary Advancement for Prisoners’ Rights

The decision in Dorsey v Canada, issued by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) on November 21, 2025, represents the first major jurisprudential development in the law of habeas corpus for several years. It expands the availability of habeas corpus to inmates whose applications to transfer to a lower security level have been denied. Prior to Dorsey, habeas corpus was only available in the context of institutional transfers if an inmate’s security level had been involuntarily raised. Writing for the majority in Dorsey, Justice Mary T. Moreau found that a decision denying an inmate transfer to a lower security level qualifies as a deprivation of liberty for which habeas corpus can offer a remedy.

John v Edmonton Police Service: Guilty of Being a Black Man

By Amy Matychuk

On October 19, 2023

In Human Rights, Police

By: Amy Matychuk

Case commented on: John v Edmonton Police Service, 2023 AHRC 87 (CanLII)

PDF Version: John v Edmonton Police Service: Guilty of Being a Black Man

This is a comment on a decision on a complaint made under s 4 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5, that the Edmonton Police Service discriminated against the complainants on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, or place of origin.

The Black complainants, Yousef John and Caesar Judianga, were roommates who chased a White woman they witnessed smash a car window. Their other roommate, also a Black man, restrained the woman while one of the complainants called the police. When the police officer arrived at the chaotic scene, he believed the complainants were possibly engaged in criminal behavior and used force to gain control of the situation. The police officer directed most of the force he used against the Black complainants rather than the White woman. Tribunal Member Erika Ringseis of the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) found that the complaint was made out against the Edmonton Police Service.

R v Boudreau: Senior Crown Recused Due to Hostility, “Animus” Toward Accused

By Amy Matychuk

On July 21, 2021

In Ethics and the Legal Profession, Provincial Court

By: Amy Matychuk

PDF Version: R v Boudreau: Senior Crown Recused Due to Hostility, “Animus” Toward Accused?

Case Commented On: R v Boudreau, 2021 ABPC 175 (CanLII)

In R v Boudreau, 2021 ABPC 175 (CanLII), Judge F. K. MacDonald for the Provincial Court of Alberta ordered that Mr. Mark Huyser-Wierenga, a Crown prosecutor, recuse himself from conducting a prosecution against the accused, Mr. William Boudreau. Judge MacDonald found that Mr. Huyser-Wierenga’s conduct showed “a lack of objectivity and an inappropriate hostility” to Mr. Boudreau’s defense counsel, Ms. Ellen Sutherland (at para 110). Mr. Huyser-Wierenga also put himself in a position of conflict and conducted himself recklessly or with unacceptable negligence. In this unusual decision, Judge MacDonald issues a stern rebuke to a very senior male Crown prosecutor who not only treated junior female defence counsel discourteously and unprofessionally, but also gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias against the accused by making himself a witness and using hyperbole and overstatement when before the court.

R v Shoemaker: Alberta Court of Appeal Tells Corrections Canada to Follow Its Own Rules

By Amy Matychuk

On August 1, 2019

In Constitutional, Criminal

By: Amy Matychuk

PDF Version: R v Shoemaker: Alberta Court of Appeal Tells Corrections Canada to Follow Its Own Rules

Case Commented On: R v Shoemaker, 2019 ABCA 266 (Can LII)

In R v Shoemaker, Justices Marina Paperny, Frans Slatter, and Kevin Feehan for the Alberta Court of Appeal (ABCA) overturned Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (ABQB) Justice K. D. Yamauchi’s decision dismissing Mr Shoemaker’s application for habeas corpus. Mr Shoemaker applied for habeas corpus after he was involuntarily transferred from the medium and minimum security Drumheller Institution to the maximum security Edmonton Institution. The ABCA held that Mr Shoemaker did not have a reasonable opportunity to prepare and provide representations responding to the reasons for his transfer or to seek the assistance of legal counsel. He was denied these opportunities because Correctional Service Canada (CSC) did not follow the procedural safeguards for inmates as set out in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, SC 1992, c 20 (CCRA), the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620 (CCRR), and CSC’s internal directives. This post is part of my ongoing series on habeas corpus litigation in Alberta. For more background, see my previous posts from May 2017, July 2017, and February 2018.