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 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.

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 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.