The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that federal prisoners can challenge decisions denying them transfers to lower-security institutions. This landmark decision, issued on November 22, 2023, emphasizes that refusals for such transfers may constitute a deprivation of liberty that warrants judicial review. The case involved inmate Ghassan Salah, who argued that his confinement conditions must be evaluated in light of the real-world impacts of his security classification.
In its judgment, the Court determined that a qualitative assessment of liberty is necessary. It is insufficient to merely consider whether a prisoner’s formal security classification has changed. Judges must also take into account the implications of remaining in a more restrictive environment, especially when a transfer to less restrictive conditions is at stake. This perspective aligns with the principle that liberty interests persist even after incarceration.
Two inmates, including Salah, sought to move from medium-security to minimum-security facilities in 2019. Initially, their case management teams supported reclassification. However, senior correctional officials ultimately denied the transfers. The Ontario Superior Court dismissed their habeas corpus applications, and a majority of the Court of Appeal agreed, viewing these denials as internal administrative matters to be resolved through the Correctional Service of Canada’s grievance process rather than through judicial means.
Writing for the majority, Justice Moreau criticized this viewpoint. The Court asserted that once an inmate demonstrates a deprivation of liberty and presents a legitimate challenge to its legality, habeas corpus must be available. In such cases, the burden shifts to the state to justify the continued detention. The majority emphasized that habeas corpus serves as a vital safeguard against unlawful restrictions on liberty, even within prison walls, and should not be limited to instances of increased security classifications.
The Supreme Court’s ruling allows the inmates’ applications to proceed based on their merits. In dissent, Justices Côté, Rowe, and Jamal expressed concerns about the implications of extending habeas corpus to denied transfers. They argued that such a move risks transforming habeas corpus into a broad tool for scrutinizing prison administration. They maintained that the statutory grievance framework and judicial review through the Federal Court are the appropriate channels for resolving these disputes.
This judgment underscores that incarceration does not exempt individuals from judicial protections. By affirming that habeas corpus can address significant decisions regarding security levels and confinement conditions, the Supreme Court has reinforced the notion that executive power over prisoners is subject to meaningful judicial oversight. The ruling signals that liberty interests remain significant even post-conviction, and that constitutional principles of accountability and oversight are applicable within the penitentiary system.
The implications of this decision extend beyond the immediate cases involved, as it sets a precedent for future challenges regarding inmate rights and security classifications. The ruling reflects a commitment to ensuring that the rights of prisoners are respected, fostering a legal environment where justice can prevail even in the context of incarceration.
