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. Continue reading →

By: Lisa Silver

PDF Version: A Look Down the Road Taken by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Mills

Case Commented On: R v Mills, 2019 SCC 22

Perhaps we, in the legal world, should not have been surprised by R v Mills, 2019 SCC 22, the most recent decision on privacy and the application of that concept in the s. 8 Charter regime. When it comes to Supreme Court decisions, we tend to dispense with the facts in favour of the principles, but Mills reminds us, facts do still matter in our highest court. Factually, pragmatically, and contextually, we understand that the investigative technique used in Mills simply needs to work. But in the name of principle, precedence, and visionary reach, Mills leaves us wondering. To throw even more dust into the eyes, overlaid on the decision is confusion. The seven-panel decision is fractured, leaving us to count on our fingers who agrees with who to manage some sort of majority decision. In the end, the numeric tally does not really matter. This is a new kind of Supreme Court where everyone agrees in the outcome but how they get there leads us onto the road “less travelled” or to update the metaphor, leads us through the web of internet connections less surfed. Or does it? Mills may be surprising but not unpredictable. It may also be just another decision exploring the reach of privacy in our everyday world and therefore part of the narrative, not the last word. Continue reading →