A writ of habeas corpus was filed and received. It was refused twice — once by a staff letter, once by a judge's endorsement that assigned it no file number. No writ was ever awarded, no return ever made, no decision on the habeas corpus has ever issued. This page is the chain.
The statute
Ontario's Habeas Corpus Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.1, s. 1(1): where it appears by affidavit that there is reasonable and probable ground for the complaint, the judge shall award the writ, directed to the custodian, "returnable immediately." Section 1(2) requires written notice of every application to the Attorney General at least 48 hours before it is made; the Attorney General is entitled as of right to be heard. Disobedience of the writ is an offence. There is no grace period in the Act.
The chain
| Date | Document | What it says |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 26, 2025 | Filing day — two habeas application emails to the Windsor SCJ; the signed Form 14A follows Dec 30 and is re-sent Jan 1 | Subject of the first: "HABEAS CORPUS APPLICATION — IMMEDIATE PAYMENT DEMANDED $57,650,000." Copies go the same day to the Attorney General of Ontario and the Windsor Crown Attorney's office. |
| Jan 2, 2026 | Emergency Motion to Amend Habeas Corpus, to Windsor SCJ and others | The filer asks the court the same morning to "confirm receipt of the Emergency Habeas Communication and Amendment." |
| Jan 5, 2026 | Staff letter — Samantha Gibson, Trial Coordinator–Criminal | "A file number has not been assigned. The application is not proper." |
| Jan 15, 2026 | Staff letter — Gibson, refusing the filer's January 7 mandamus application | "From our records, you do not have any criminal matters pending in the Superior Court of Justice at Windsor." |
| Jan 26, 2026, 4:04 p.m. | The original habeas application, emailed to the Ottawa SCJ and forwarded to Windsor the same afternoon | Subject: "EMERGENCY HABEAS CORPUS APPLICATION — Francesco Longo — Unlawful Arrest + Spoliation + Fabricated Charges." The preserved text contains no mention of Dorsey and no phrase "systemic criminal conspiracy." No reply from Ottawa SCJ exists anywhere in the record. |
| Jan 27, 2026, 9:37 a.m. | The original denial — staff letter, Gibson | "Your application cannot be accepted by the court. A Habeas corpus can only be filed by a person is in custody." Custody ground only. No judge. No Dorsey — the filer had not yet raised it. |
| Jan 28, 2026, 2:28 p.m. | The filer's "Response to Rejection" | Raises Dorsey v. Canada, 2025 SCC 38 for the first time: "binding Supreme Court precedent… that requires immediate consideration." |
| Jan 28, 2026, 3:30 p.m. | The signed renewed application — the instrument the endorsement answers; addressed to the Attorney General of Ontario directly, among the courts | Title page, verbatim: "APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH EVIDENCE OF SYSTEMIC CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY." It cites Dorsey twice. |
| Jan 28, 2026 (dated) · Jan 29, 8:42 a.m. (transmitted) | Endorsement — Carroccia J., transmitted by Gibson | Refuses the renewed application acceptance for filing. Its own form states COURT FILE NO.: NONE. See below. |
| Feb 11 & Feb 17, 2026 | The filer's demands, directed to Carroccia J. | Demanding an immediate response to the habeas application, and processing of a Rule 43 mandamus to force a decision. Neither was ever answered by her. |
| Feb 26, 2026 | Endorsement — Hebner J., transmitted by Gibson | Answers the February demands by recital: "The email requesting habeas corpus was considered by Carroccia J on January 28, 2026." States the court is considering a vexatious-litigant order under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act and directs a registrar's notice, with 20 days to respond. Whether any registrar's notice was ever served, or any order ever made, is not established by any document in the record. |
The endorsement of January 28, 2026
The endorsement quotes the renewed application's title accurately — all twelve words, "what he titles 'Application for writ of habeas corpus with evidence of systemic criminal conspiracy'" — and its requested remedy. It then refuses the filing on three grounds: the remedy ("A Habeas Corpus application cannot provide such a remedy"), the rules ("the material filed, which does not comply with the Rules in any event, will not be accepted for filing"), and custody:
"I am advised that Mr. Longo has no outstanding criminal charges in the Superior Court of Justice in Windsor and is not in custody." — Endorsement of Carroccia J., January 28, 2026. The adviser is not named. No record is cited. No document in the Crown's or the court's production identifies the adviser or the proof relied on — the question is the subject of a separate demand to the courts, and on the record as it stands it is unanswered.
What the endorsement decided is acceptance for filing. It is not a hearing, not a return of the writ, and not a ruling on the habeas corpus. No court has ever ruled on the habeas corpus.
Dorsey — cited, and not applied
Dorsey v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 SCC 38 (November 21, 2025) was decided 6–3 (Moreau J. for the majority). Dorsey and Salah were federal inmates refused reclassification to minimum security; the Court held that such a refusal can itself be a deprivation of liberty. Its framework: two elements — a deprivation of liberty, and a legitimate ground to question its lawfulness — proceeding in three stages, after which the onus shifts to the detaining authority to prove the deprivation lawful. A hearing is mandatory once the threshold is met: the writ "is non-discretionary" (para. 47). The categories of deprivation are "not exhaustive" (para. 41), the analysis is qualitative, and no prior entitlement need be shown at stage one (paras. 63–67).
The endorsement quotes paragraph 44 of Dorsey — its first three sentences, exactly — and stops. Paragraph 44 has a fourth sentence: "All applications for habeas corpus, irrespective of a particular Dumas category, face further filtering at the second stage: raising a legitimate ground to question the lawfulness of the deprivation of their liberty." The endorsement never runs the test the decision sets out: no stage-one deprivation analysis, no stage-two legitimate-ground inquiry, no onus analysis. Its custody premise rests on the unsourced "I am advised."
Dorsey compares states of confinement of persons already incarcerated, and does not itself hold that a person in no form of detention obtains the writ. The defect documented here is narrower and provable: the framework was cited and not applied, and the statute's own threshold question — the ground appearing by affidavit under s. 1(1) — is never engaged in either refusal. The filer's wider reading of Dorsey (post-release surveillance, economic ruin and psychological harm as habeas grounds, a "unanimous" court) comes from his own published summary page and fails verification against the judgment: the vote was 6–3, and the words "surveillance" and "economic" appear nowhere in it. Both corrections stand on this page because this record corrects its own side first.
The Attorney General had the writ — eight times
Header-verified from the filer's mail record, eight habeas instruments carried the Attorney General of Ontario, the Ministry of the Attorney General, or the Windsor Crown Attorney's office as addressee or copy:
| Date | Instrument | Attorney General / Crown appearance |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 26, 2025 (×2) | Habeas application emails to Windsor SCJ — filing day | Cc: [email protected]; the ministry's correspondence address; both Windsor Crown addresses |
| Jan 26, 2026 | The original application to Ottawa SCJ | Cc: [email protected]; the instrument's own address block also names the Attorney General |
| Jan 28, 2026 | The renewed application — the one the endorsement answers | To: [email protected], directly |
| Feb 17, 2026 (×3) | Renewed-application thread; the Rule 43 mandamus demands | To/Cc: [email protected]; the ministry's court-services address; the Attorney General of Ontario personally ([email protected]); the Windsor Crown office |
| Mar 3, 2026 | "Habeas Corpus $57M Demand" | Cc: AG Ontario (two addresses) and the Attorney General of Canada |
The copies accompanied the instruments; no document shows a separate notice sent 48 hours before an application. And on the statute's question itself the record is total: no document anywhere — no court letter, neither endorsement, no Crown letter, no acknowledgment — mentions s. 1(2), the notice, or the Attorney General having been heard on any of these applications. Replies from any Attorney General, ministry, or Crown address to any of the eight: none.
No release has ever been proven
Across the whole record, no written order of release, dismissal, or withdrawal has ever been produced. The Crown, asked for the dismissal ruling, answered on October 1, 2025: "Our office does not keep copies of rulings." Every statement of status in the record is qualified — "no current active files with our office" (Crown, October 1, 2025); "no criminal matters pending in the Superior Court of Justice at Windsor" (court staff, January 15, 2026); "no outstanding criminal charges in the Superior Court of Justice in Windsor" (the endorsement's advice) — and none is supported by an order. The filer of the 2021 Windsor matter (Court File 21-845) holds no written order of dismissal and states that he was told the dismissal was oral.
He has never been released, and they cannot prove otherwise. The writ was filed and received; the body was not produced on the day it was requested or on any day since; no release or dismissal paper exists in any production. A document received by a judicial officer is filed, whether or not the receiving office assigns it a number — and they denied something without putting a number on a legal document that was filed. In his words: "you can't make a judgment on something with no proof." The respondents are in default, and a ruling made upon a default of this record does not cure it.
Habeas submission chain reconstruction, October 27, 2026 (Gmail message IDs cited per document; endorsement PDFs preserved with the filer's records); the s. 1(2) notice check appended to the Hebner chain-of-custody report, October 27, 2026; the verbatim hunt for the "no active matters" letters, October 27, 2026; Dorsey v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 SCC 38, read whole; Habeas Corpus Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.1, ss. 1(1)–(2).