The Nunavut Court of Justice acquitted M.V. on all charges of sexual assault and sexual interference involving a minor. The court found that, while the complainant provided a video statement and testified at trial, contradictions between her statements, questions about her intoxication at the time of the incidents, and the lack of detail about the alleged touching raised reasonable doubt. Justice Alibhai emphasized that the presumption of innocence and the requirement to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could not be satisfied. Costs were not awarded.

The Alberta Court of King's Bench dismissed our client's application for habeas corpus on the grounds that his transfer from minimum security to medium security was procedurally unfair. The court found that the irregularities in the transfer decision did not render it procedurally unfair and upheld the transfer. Costs were not awarded.

The Alberta Court of King's Bench dismissed our client's application for habeas corpus on the grounds that he was transferred from a healing lodge to a medium security institution without the requisite degree of procedural fairness. The court found that his transfer was procedurally fair. The court did not award costs.

In a major development for the law of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court of Canada found that inmates who are denied transfer to a lower security level may address illegalities of those decisions via habeas corpus. Prison & Police Law represented the intervenor the Alberta Prison Justice Society in urging the court to expand the scope of habeas corpus.

The Nunavut Court of Justice acquitted the accused on all charges, finding that the evidence was insufficient and unreliable to establish sexual touching beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court raised concerns about inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, possible hearsay, and intoxication affecting memory.

The Law Enforcement Review Board found that the Calgary Police Service Professional Standards

Section did not give our client good enough reasons when it dismissed their complaint. Our client alleged that an officer neglected to follow their mental health care plan. The Professional Standards Section dismissed their complaint as frivolous and vexatious without explaining why the officer's failure to follow the care plan did not qualify as misconduct.

The Federal Court of Canada dismissed our client's application for judicial review of his security reclassification on the grounds that the decision to

reclassify him was unreasonable. The court found that the decision was reasonable but did not award

Costs.

The Nunavut Court of Appeal granted judicial interim release pending appeal, finding that the applicant raised a non-frivolous sentencing issue and that the balance of public and individual interests justified release. The Court was satisfied that appropriate conditions could manage any risk.

The court dismissed our client's application for judicial review after his grievance was denied. His Escorted Temporary Absences were cancelled

following allegations that he had misled his escorting staff member during a family visit. The court found that the grievance decision was reasonable but did not order costs.

The Law Enforcement Review Board found that our client was unfairly excluded from the complaint process regarding sexual text messages she received from a Calgary Police officer. She received her requested remedy of a new disciplinary hearing into the misconduct.

The Law Enforcement Review Board found that our client's appeal of a disposition in relation to police misconduct that occurred against her should go forward. While investigating a complaint she made about domestic violence, a Calgary Police officer sent her sexually suggestive text messages. The Chief investigated the misconduct internally without notice to the complainant, even though she made a public complaint within the appropriate time frame.

The Chief then argued on appeal that the complainant did not have the right to appeal from the disposition. The Board disagreed and ruled that the complainant's appeal was properly brought.

While ultimately dismissing this appeal, the Court of Appeal found that our client should not have been denied an oral hearing of his habeas corpus application on the basis that he was a vexatious

litigant or because of an abuse of process. The Court recognized that detained persons have a constitutional right under section 10(c) of the Charter to have their detention reviewed by habeas corpus, and whether or not the applicant has a strong case for their application does not impact this right. Furthermore, our client had the right to file fresh applications for each new restraint on his liberty, and doing so was not an abuse of process regardless of the effectiveness or success of those applications.

The Nunavut Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal, finding no reviewable error and concluding that the sentences were not demonstrably unfit. The Court ordered the appellant to surrender to custody to serve the balance of his sentence despite compassionate arguments.

The Nunavut Court of Appeal granted judicial interim release pending appeal, concluding that release was justified in the public interest without requiring a surety. The Court directed that release conditions accommodate the applicant’s need to leave the community for medical care.