Law360 Canada ( September 29, 2025, 9:53 AM EDT) -- Appeal by Leinen from chambers judge’s decision suspending the effect of an order. Leinen was involuntarily transferred, on an emergency basis, from the Mission Institution (a combined minimum- and medium-security prison) to the Kent Institution (a maximum-security prison). Following the emergency transfer, the Warden of the Mission Institution (Warden), made two interrelated decisions after a Warden’s Board hearing (the Warden’s Decisions). The first decision approved a recommendation that the offender security level for Leinen be increased to maximum. The second decision approved Leinen’s involuntary transfer from the Mission Institution to the Kent Institution. Leinen filed a habeas corpus petition seeking an order that he be returned to the Mission Institution on the basis the Warden’s Decisions were unreasonable and the process was unfair. The chambers judge set aside the Warden’s Decisions but suspended the effect of this order for 21 days. Leinen was reclassified to medium security by the Warden and was voluntarily transferred to the medium-security Bowden Institution in Alberta. As a result, the relief sought in his petition had already been granted, raising the issue of mootness. However, Leinen asked the Court to hear this appeal to clarify the law regarding the jurisdiction of a chambers judge hearing a habeas corpus application to set aside a warden’s reclassification decision and suspend the effect of an order. Leinen submitted the only remedy available to the chambers judge was to make an order returning him to the status quo prior to the Warden’s Decisions. The parties agreed that the chambers judge erred by setting aside the Warden’s Decisions, as this remedy was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court. The Warden submitted this appeal was factually moot....