The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that federal inmates can challenge decisions that deny them transfers to lower-security facilities. This ruling, delivered on a recent Friday, establishes that such refusals may constitute a deprivation of liberty, which the courts must be able to review. The decision arose from a case involving inmate Ghassan Salah, highlighting the need for a qualitative assessment of liberty in the context of imprisonment.
In its judgment, the Court emphasized that it is not sufficient to merely consider whether a prisoner’s formal security classification has been altered. Judges are required to evaluate the actual effects of confinement conditions. The ruling stresses that when inmates remain in a more restrictive environment while a transfer to less restrictive conditions is under consideration, their liberty interests remain engaged, even after incarceration.
Both appellants in this case sought transfers from medium-security to minimum-security facilities in 2019. Initially, their case management teams supported their reclassification, but senior correctional officials ultimately denied the transfers. The Ontario Superior Court dismissed their habeas corpus applications, and a majority of the Court of Appeal concurred, treating the transfer denials as internal administrative matters suited for the Correctional Service of Canada grievance process rather than judicial review.
Justice Moreau, writing for the majority, rejected the view that habeas corpus should be limited in this context. The Court maintained that if an inmate demonstrates a deprivation of liberty and presents a legitimate basis for questioning its legality, they are entitled to habeas corpus relief. The Court highlighted that this legal recourse remains a crucial safeguard against unlawful restrictions on liberty, extending even within prison walls.
The majority’s ruling mandates that the inmates’ applications proceed on their merits. In dissent, Justices Côté, Rowe, and Jamal expressed concerns that broadening the scope of habeas corpus to include denied transfer requests could lead to an influx of cases reviewing prison administration. They argued that the statutory grievance regime and judicial review in the Federal Court are more appropriate avenues for resolving such disputes, cautioning that the majority’s approach might entangle provincial superior courts in routine correctional management.
This landmark judgment reinforces the principle that incarceration does not exempt individuals from judicial protections. By affirming that habeas corpus can be invoked to contest significant decisions regarding security levels and confinement conditions, the Supreme Court has reiterated that executive authority over prisoners is subject to substantial judicial oversight. The decision underscores the continued importance of liberty interests even after conviction, affirming that constitutional principles of accountability and oversight extend into the prison system.
