An immigration detainee challenged more than 13 months in custody and the conditions of his confinement. Statutory detention reviews had continued the detention, but the Court concluded that this process didn't offer review as broad and advantageous as habeas corpus in a provincial superior court for the particular grounds he raised.
The majority dismissed the Minister's appeal and allowed his habeas corpus application to be heard. The Court didn't decide that the detention itself was unlawful or order release. The holding concerns access to a meaningful court remedy where detention has become lengthy or indeterminate.
The decision is specific to the challenge brought by Chhina. He questioned more than a year of custody in a maximum security setting and the uncertain length of continued detention. The majority examined the monthly detention review procedures under immigration legislation, federal judicial review and the legal protection offered by a writ of habeas corpus. It found material differences concerning the burden of proof, the scope of a court's inquiry and how quickly an unlawful confinement could be brought before a judge.
The Court dismissed the federal government's appeal from the Alberta Court of Appeal. It did not decide whether Chhina had actually been detained unlawfully. Instead, it held that a superior court had jurisdiction to hear his challenge. Justice Abella dissented on the interpretation of the statutory immigration review process. The result reminds custodial institutions that the existence of routine administrative reviews does not automatically displace superior court supervision of detention when those reviews cannot address the actual legal complaint as broadly and effectively.