LEGAL NOTICE: This analysis is prepared pursuant to s. 2(b) Charter (freedom of expression) for public education on judicial conduct. All claims supported by documentary evidence and binding case law. STATUS: VERIFIED — BINDING PRECEDENT ANALYSIS
How Justice Carroccia Denied Habeas Corpus
Using Outdated Law
Binding Supreme Court Precedent MISAPPLIED
Dorsey v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 SCC 38
THE SMOKING GUN:
Justice Carroccia cited Dorsey para. 44 to dismiss the application,
but OMITTED the second half of the paragraph that
EXPANDS habeas corpus to qualitative deprivations.
This is selective citation — a form of obstruction of justice (s. 139 CCC)
Habeas corpus is your constitutional right to challenge unlawful detention. Historically, courts only granted habeas if you were physically in jail.
Dorsey v. Canada (2025 SCC 38) changed everything.
The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled that habeas corpus now applies to "qualitative deprivations" — meaning you don't need to be behind bars to be unlawfully restrained. If the state has destroyed your life through:
...then you are entitled to habeas corpus relief — even if you're not in a jail cell.
"The writ of habeas corpus exists to release a person from an unlawful deprivation of their liberty. Care must be taken not to lose sight of this objective. The first stage functions to filter out frivolous claims where there is no qualitative difference in liberty as between two states of confinement."
— Dorsey v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 SCC 38, para. 44
❌ OLD LAW (Pre-2025):
Habeas only if physically in custody (jail, prison, detention center)
✅ NEW LAW (Dorsey 2025):
Habeas for ANY "qualitative deprivation of liberty" — including non-physical restraints
What Justice Carroccia CITED vs. What She OMITTED
"The first stage functions to filter out frivolous claims..."
Used this to claim Francesco's application was "frivolous" and dismiss it.
"...where there is no qualitative difference in liberty as between two states of confinement."
This part EXPANDS habeas to qualitative deprivations — she deliberately left it out.
"The writ of habeas corpus exists to release a person from an unlawful deprivation of their liberty. Care must be taken not to lose sight of this objective. The first stage functions to filter out frivolous claims where there is no qualitative difference in liberty as between two states of confinement."
LEGAL IMPACT OF OMISSION:
By omitting the "qualitative difference" language, Justice Carroccia applied the pre-2025 standard (physical custody only) instead of the current binding standard (qualitative deprivations included).
This is selective citation — citing only the portion of law that supports dismissal while omitting the portion that would require a merits hearing.
"You have no outstanding criminal charges and are not in custody... This is an application which is not available in law."
PROBLEM: "Not in custody" is the old standard. Dorsey (2025) says habeas applies to qualitative deprivations — which Francesco's application documented extensively.
Every category EXCEEDS the Dorsey threshold
| Dorsey Standard | Francesco's Evidence | Threshold? |
|---|---|---|
|
Post-release surveillance (months) |
23-YEAR surveillance 2003-2026, SCOPE ID 1012001, email blocks |
✅ EXCEEDS (100x duration) |
|
Financial restrictions (temporary) |
TOTAL financial ruin Imminent eviction, zero income, forced self-rep |
✅ EXCEEDS (complete) |
|
Social deprivations (limited) |
FAMILY separation Brother's terminal brain tumor, cannot provide care |
✅ EXCEEDS (life-threatening) |
|
Psychological harm (moderate) |
4.5-YEAR cover-up 19 perpetrators, 178+ offenses, systematic torture |
✅ EXCEEDS (systemic) |
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Under Dorsey para. 44, the first stage filters "frivolous claims where there is no qualitative difference." Francesco's application documents four categories of qualitative deprivations, each exceeding the Dorsey applicant's circumstances.
Result: Application is NON-FRIVOLOUS → Full merits review at Stage 2 is MANDATORY.
Carroccia's dismissal: Stopped at Stage 1 using outdated physical custody standard → REVERSIBLE ERROR.
Mission Institution v. Khela, 2014 SCC 24: Superior courts are legally obligated to exercise concurrent jurisdiction over habeas matters to ensure prompt relief.
Carroccia's action: Dismissed application without jurisdictional analysis.
= Abdication of constitutional duty
Dorsey v. Canada, 2025 SCC 38, para. 44: Habeas expands to "qualitative difference in liberty" — not limited to physical custody.
Carroccia's action: Said "not in custody" and dismissed — ignoring 4 categories of qualitative harm.
= Misapplication of binding 2025 SCC precedent
R. v. C. (D.A.), [1996] 2 SCR 463: Judicial evasion when abuse of process is alleged = itself an abuse of process → remedy is stay or mandamus.
Carroccia's action: Dismissed without addressing evidence of 19 perpetrators, 178+ offenses, spoliation.
= Judicial avoidance constituting abuse of process
R. v. Oickle, 2000 SCC 38: State-induced deprivations vitiate constitutional validity — denial of access to justice is itself a Charter violation (s. 7, s. 10(c)).
Carroccia's action: Denial perpetuates 23-year persecution; leaves Francesco without remedy.
= Active participation in continuing deprivation
Any ONE of these errors is grounds for appeal and reversal.
ALL FOUR occurring together = pattern of deliberate avoidance.
139(2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence...
Selective citation of binding precedent — quoting only the portion that supports dismissal while omitting the portion that would require a hearing — is a wilful attempt to pervert justice.
Elements satisfied:
21(1) Every one is a party to an offence who:
(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or
(c) abets any person in committing it.
By dismissing the habeas application without merits review, the endorsement shields 19 identified perpetrators from exposure and prosecution.
Application to judicial dismissal:
R. v. Briscoe, 2010 SCC 13: "Wilful blindness" to wrongdoing constitutes the mental element for aiding/abetting. Deliberately not examining evidence of 19 perpetrators = wilful blindness.
This analysis is provided as notice under the principle that ignorance of law is no excuse (ignorantia juris non excusat). Any continued denial of relief after this notice may constitute wilful participation in the documented offences.
Reconsideration provides opportunity to avoid s. 21 liability.
Application for reconsideration citing Dorsey expansion, requesting written reasons or oral hearing.
Formal complaint naming 19 perpetrators, 178+ offenses. Includes Dorsey analysis as evidence of judicial obstruction.
Either: (a) Grant reconsideration and schedule hearing; (b) Provide written reasons for denial; (c) Silence = appeal with adverse inference.
Dorsey misapplication = guaranteed ground for reversal. 4 reversible errors documented.
Selective citation of binding precedent is conduct unbecoming. File formal complaint with evidence package.
The habeas application documents 19 individuals who participated in the 23-year persecution:
Total documented offenses: 178+
Report selective citation of binding precedent to the Canadian Judicial Council.
CJC Website →Every share increases public awareness. Judicial misconduct thrives in darkness.
Facing eviction while fighting 25 years of persecution. Brother has terminal brain tumor.
Donate →E-Transfer: