The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that federal inmates can challenge decisions denying their transfer to lower-security facilities. In a decision issued on Friday, the court found that such refusals can constitute a deprivation of liberty that warrants judicial review. This ruling stems from a case involving inmate Ghassan Salah, highlighting the need for a qualitative approach to assessing liberty interests within the correctional system.
In the case, both appellants sought to transfer from medium-security to minimum-security institutions in 2019. Initially, their case management teams supported their reclassification. However, senior correctional officials ultimately denied the transfers. The Ontario Superior Court dismissed their habeas corpus applications, with a majority of the Court of Appeal agreeing that transfer denials should be treated as internal administrative matters rather than legal disputes. This interpretation suggested that such cases should be addressed through the grievance process established by the Correctional Service of Canada.
Justice Moreau, writing for the majority, rejected this view, asserting that once an inmate demonstrates a deprivation of liberty and raises a legitimate concern about the legality of their confinement, habeas corpus is applicable. The court emphasized that the burden then shifts to the state to justify the continued detention of the inmate. The ruling reinforces that habeas corpus serves as a crucial safeguard against unlawful restrictions on liberty, even within the confines of a prison.
The majority opinion further asserted that the right to challenge transfer denials is essential for maintaining accountability within the correctional system. The court stressed that incarceration does not exempt individuals from the protection of the law, and it reaffirmed that executive power over inmates is subject to meaningful judicial oversight.
In dissent, Justices Côté, Rowe, and Jamal cautioned that broadening the application of habeas corpus to include transfer denials could transform it into a general tool for reviewing prison management. They argued that the existing statutory grievance system and judicial review by the Federal Court are the appropriate channels for resolving such disputes. Their dissent warned that the majority’s approach might drag provincial superior courts into routine correctional management issues.
The judgment from the Supreme Court underscores a significant principle: liberty interests persist even after a conviction. By confirming that inmates can use habeas corpus to challenge critical decisions regarding security levels and confinement conditions, the court has reinforced the notion that constitutional principles of oversight and accountability extend into the penitentiary system, ensuring that inmates retain a voice in their treatment and conditions of confinement.
