Editing Habeas corpus (section)

===Canada===
''Habeas corpus'' rights are part of the English legal tradition inherited by Canada. The rights exist in the common law and have been enshrined in [[Section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|section 10(c)]] of the ''[[Charter of Rights and Freedoms]]'', which states that "[e]veryone has the right on arrest or detention ... to have the validity of the detention determined by way of ''habeas corpus'' and to be released if the detention is not lawful".<ref>''Constitution Act, 1982'', Schedule B to the ''Canada Act 1982'' (UK), 1982, c 11, [http://canlii.ca/t/ldsx#sec10 s 10]</ref> The [[Legal tests|test]] for ''habeas corpus'' in Canada was established by the [[Supreme Court of Canada]] in ''[[Mission Institution]] v Khela'',<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Davis|first=Ian|date=2019|title=Taking Prisoners' Rights Seriously on Substantive Habeas Corpus Review|url=https://commentary.canlii.org/w/canlii/2019CanLIIDocs2835|journal=Canadian Journal of Human Rights|volume=29|pages=34–35|id=2019 CanLIIDocs 2835|via=[[CanLII]]}}</ref> as follows:<blockquote>To be successful, an application for ''habeas corpus'' must satisfy the following criteria. First, the applicant [i.e., the person seeking ''habeas corpus'' review] must establish that he or she has been deprived of liberty. Once a deprivation of liberty is proven, the applicant must raise a legitimate ground upon which to question its legality. If the applicant has raised such a ground, the onus shifts to the respondent authorities [i.e., the person or institution detaining the applicant] to show that the deprivation of liberty was lawful.<ref>''Mission Institution v Khela'', 2014 SCC 24 at [http://canlii.ca/t/g69pq#par30 para 30]</ref></blockquote>Suspension of the writ in Canadian history occurred at multiple times. During the [[October Crisis]] in 1970, the ''[[War Measures Act]]'' was invoked by the [[Governor General of Canada]] on the [[Advice (constitutional)|constitutional advice]] of Prime Minister [[Pierre Trudeau]], who had received a request from the [[Quebec]] Cabinet.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Parkes|first=Debra|date=2012|title=The 'Great Writ' Reinvigorated? Habeas Corpus in Contemporary Canada|url=https://commentary.canlii.org/w/canlii/2012CanLIIDocs271|journal=Manitoba Law Journal|volume=36|issue=1|pages=352|doi=10.29173/mlj826 |id=2012 CanLIIDocs 271|via=CanLII}}</ref> The Act was also used to justify German, Slavic, and [[Ukrainian Canadian internment]] during [[World War I]], and the internment of German-Canadians, Italian-Canadians and [[Japanese Canadian internment|Japanese-Canadians]] during [[World War II]]. The writ was suspended for several years following the [[Battle of Fort Erie (1866)]] during the [[Fenian raids|Fenian Raids]], though the suspension was only ever applied to suspects in the [[Thomas D'Arcy McGee]] assassination.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/033001/f2/033001-1402.7-e.pdf |title=The Fenians in Canada |first=David A. |last=Wilson |publisher=[[Library and Archives Canada]] |access-date=2 October 2013}}</ref>

The writ is available where there is no other adequate remedy. However, a superior court always has the discretion to grant the writ even in the face of an alternative remedy (see ''May v Ferndale Institution'').<ref>{{cite CanLII |litigants=May v Ferndale Institution |link= |year=2005 |court=scc |num=82 |parallelcite=[2005] 3 SCR 809 |date=2005-12-22}}</ref> Under the [[Criminal Code (Canada)|''Criminal Code'']] the writ is largely unavailable if a statutory right of appeal exists, whether or not this right has been exercised.