Date: 20061107
Docket: T-653-06
Citation: 2006 FC 1337
Ottawa,
Ontario, November 7, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Beaudry
BETWEEN:
ROGER
LEBLANC
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review pursuant to section 18.1 of the Federal
Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, of a decision dated March 16, 2006, of Don
Head, Senior Deputy Commissioner (SDC), which upheld the Applicant’s Third
Level Grievance that his medium security classification should not have been overridden
to maximum security. The Applicant brings this application because he alleges
that while the SDC upheld his grievance, no corrective action was taken to his
classification.
ISSUES
[2]
The
issues raised in this judicial review application are as follows:
1. Did the SDC
breach the Applicant’s statutory rights to information by failing to disclose
additional information obtained from institutional staff for the purpose of the
third-level analysis?
2. Did the SDC
commit a patently unreasonable error when he upheld the third level grievance
but declined to order a reassessment of the Applicant’s security
reclassification?
3. If the
response to the second question is affirmative, is the matter moot in any
event?
[3]
For
the following reasons, the answer to questions 1 and 2 is negative. The present
application shall be dismissed.
BACKGROUND
[4]
The
Applicant is a Dangerous Offender serving a sentence of life imprisonment for
property offences as well as one conviction for uttering threats, two
convictions of rape (1974), sexual intercourse with a female under 14 years
(1974) and attempted rape (1974). The Applicant had a prior federal conviction
of sexual assault in 1968. The Applicant began his sentence on November 11,
1974.
[5]
While
incarcerated, the Applicant sexually assaulted two female Correctional Services
Canada (CSC) staff members: he was convicted of sexual assault causing bodily
harm against a female CSC staff member and sentenced to ten years in 1984. In 1996,
he was again charged and convicted of sexual assault and uttering threats,
against a second female staff member at the Donnacona Institution.
[6]
On
March 4, 2002, the Applicant was put in the Segregation Unit at Mission
Institution after it was learned that he had been stalking a female staff
member in his living unit for a period of two months. Given the Applicant’s
history of assault on female staff members, and his lack of insight into his
offending, the Applicant’s behaviour was deemed to be such that he could no
longer be safely managed in a medium-security environment, such as Mission
Institution. He was viewed as a high risk to re-offend sexually and thus a high
risk to public safety. Transfer to a maximum-security institution was deemed to
be the only option. Indeed, the Applicant was transferred involuntarily to Kent
Institution, a maximum-security penitentiary on March 19, 2002.
[7]
Except
for some non-sexually related charges, the Applicant led an incident free life
at Kent Institution up to his voluntary transfer to Pacific Institution to take
part in the first phase of the Odyssey Program, an Intensive Treatment Sex
Offender Program, which began on October 27, 2005. The following day, the Applicant
signed the following Behavioural Agreement (p. 97, Applicant’s Record):
Due to ongoing concerns regarding your
behaviour, the following behavioural agreement is being put in place. The
purpose of this agreement is to assist you with managing your behaviour at
Pacific Institution so that you are able to complete the recommended program.
In order for you to remain at Pacific
Institution and participate in the Odyssey Program, you will:
1)
Not be
alone with female staff.
2)
Maintain a
professional relationship with staff. More specifically, you will refrain from
asking staff questions about their personal lives. You will also refrain from
inappropriate gestures towards staff, which could be construed as having sexual
overtones (e.g., touching, kissing, following staff etc).
3)
Attend
group sessions on time and complete homework on time.
4)
Comply with
all other program requirements especially regarding the completion of a
behavioural progression and relapse prevention plan.
Any violation of these expectations may
result in your dismissal from the program and transfer to another institution.
[8]
The
Applicant breached this agreement five times:
1)
November
9, 2005: the Applicant was found frequenting the chapel during the day the
female staff is alone.
2)
November
15, 2005: the Applicant was in the library contrary to section 1 of his
behavioural agreement.
3)
December
8, 2005: the Applicant also violated section 1 when he visited the library with
another inmate who was not expected to monitor him.
4)
January 7,
2006: the Applicant was seen hovering about, hugging and kissing a church
volunteer contrary to his behavioural agreement.
5)
January 18,
2006: the Applicant failed to submit homework of the final phase of module 1
of the Odyssey program.
[9]
For
these breaches of the behavioural agreement and for not completing the Phase I
assignments, the Applicant was temporarily removed from this program on
February 3, 2006.
[10]
The
Applicant’s annual security classification reviews were overridden from medium
to maximum security in 2003, 2004 and 2005. As a result, the Applicant filed an
Inmate Grievance Presentation (second level) grievance of his security classification
on September 26, 2005. This was denied on November 4, 2005.
[11]
On
November 30, 2005, the Applicant submitted an Inmate Grievance Presentation (third
level) of his security classification, which was denied on March 16, 2006. The
Applicant alleges that there were communications regarding his status that were
taken into consideration in the decision to deny his third level grievance.
However, he was not provided with a copy of these communications prior to or
after the decision was taken. The Applicant received these communications as a
result of a Rule 317 request on this judicial review application.
[12]
It
is this lack of disclosure of information and the failure of the SDC to take
corrective action to review the override of his classification that form the crux
of this application.
DECISION UNDER REVIEW
[13]
The
relevant parts of the decision by the SDC are as follows:
As part of the analysis at the third
level, the following was reviewed: your previous grievance submission and the
corresponding response; your Offender Management System (OMS) file; and relevant
legislation and/or policy. Institutional staff were also contacted in order to
gather additional information.
In your submissions, you claim that the
override of your security classification from medium to maximum was not
justified. You maintain that you fit the criteria for, and could be managed
at, a medium-security institution.
Upon review of your most recent security
classification (Assessment for Decision, 2005/08/08), which recommended an
override from medium to maximum, it is noted that a detailed justification for
the override was not presented, pursuant to Standing Operating Practice 700-14,
Security Classification of Offenders, paragraph 23, which states:
23. Normally there will be no overrides
above or below the rating produced by the Custody Rating Scale or the Security
Reclassification Scale. Where the caseworker believes that it is necessary to
override or underride the results of the Custody Rating Scale or the Security
Reclassification Scale, he/she shall include a detailed justification in the Assessment
for Decision in conformity with section 18 of the Corrections and
Conditional Release Regulations, by setting out the analysis under the
three headings of institutional adjustment, escape risk and risk to public
safety.
This is not to say that there existed no
justification for override, nor does it suggest that the potential for risk was
not concerning and imminent; rather, it means that the rationale for override
was not presented, detailed and justified as such in the Assessment for
Decision (2005/08/08); therefore, this part of your grievance is upheld.
Since filing your grievance, it is not
appropriate to order a reassessment of your security classification (and a
proper detailed justification for override, if needed), nor is it
appropriate to order that you be recommended for medium-security
classification, given your recent behaviour at Pacific Institution.
Since your recent behaviour demonstrates
a requirement for a high degree of supervision and control within the
penitentiary, no corrective action will be required.
Given the above, your grievance is upheld.
As corrective action, the Institution
Head of Kent Institution will ensure that any future security-classification
reviews are articulated with a detailed and justified rationale, so as to
afford the inmate the opportunity to know the information that was considered
in making the decision, in accordance with Standard Operating Practice 700-14,
paragraph 23 and the Duty to Act Fairly.
[emphasis
in the original]
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
[14]
Section
27 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act 1992, c. 20. (the
CCRA) deals with information to be given to offenders. With its noted
exceptions, the relevant portions of this section state as follows:
|
Information
to be given to offenders
27. (1) Where
an offender is entitled by this Part or the regulations to make
representations in relation to a decision to be taken by the Service about
the offender, the person or body that is to take the decision shall, subject
to subsection (3), give the offender, a reasonable period before the decision
is to be taken, all the information to be considered in the taking of the
decision or a summary of that information.
Idem
(2) Where an
offender is entitled by this Part or the regulations to be given reasons for
a decision taken by the Service about the offender, the person or body that
takes the decision shall, subject to subsection (3), give the offender,
forthwith after the decision is taken, all the information that was
considered in the taking of the decision or a summary of that information.
Exceptions
(3) Except in
relation to decisions on disciplinary offences, where the Commissioner has
reasonable grounds to believe that disclosure of information under subsection
(1) or (2) would jeopardize
(a) the
safety of any person,
(b) the
security of a penitentiary, or
(c) the
conduct of any lawful investigation,
the
Commissioner may authorize the withholding from the offender of as much
information as is strictly necessary in order to protect the interest
identified in paragraph (a), (b) or (c).
|
Communication
de renseignements au délinquant
27.
(1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (3), la personne ou l’organisme chargé de
rendre, au nom du Service, une décision au sujet d’un délinquant doit,
lorsque celui-ci a le droit en vertu de la présente partie ou des règlements
de présenter des observations, lui communiquer, dans un délai raisonnable
avant la prise de décision, tous les renseignements entrant en ligne de
compte dans celle-ci, ou un sommaire de ceux-ci.
Idem
(2)
Sous réserve du paragraphe (3), cette personne ou cet organisme doit, dès que
sa décision est rendue, faire connaître au délinquant qui y a droit au titre
de la présente partie ou des règlements les renseignements pris en compte
dans la décision, ou un sommaire de ceux-ci.
Exception
(3)
Sauf dans le cas des infractions disciplinaires, le commissaire peut
autoriser, dans la mesure jugée strictement nécessaire toutefois, le refus de
communiquer des renseignements au délinquant s’il a des motifs raisonnables
de croire que cette communication mettrait en danger la sécurité d’une
personne ou du pénitencier ou compromettrait la tenue d’une enquête licite.
|
[15]
The
authority for the classification of inmates to either a minimum, medium or
maximum security is found in section 30 of the CCRA. The factors to consider
are outlined in section 17 of the Corrections and Conditional Release
Regulations (the Regulations), SOR/92-620, s. 17.
|
Service
to classify each inmate
30.
(1) The
Service shall assign a security classification of maximum, medium or minimum
to each inmate in accordance with the regulations made under paragraph
96(z.6).
Service
to give reasons
(2)
The Service shall give each inmate reasons, in writing, for assigning a
particular security classification or for changing that classification.
Security
classification
17.
The Service shall take the following factors into consideration in
determining the security classification to be assigned to an inmate pursuant
to section 30 of the Act:
(a)
the seriousness of the offence committed by the inmate;
(b)
any outstanding charges against the inmate;
(c)
the inmate's performance and behaviour while under sentence;
(d)
the inmate's social, criminal and, where available, young-offender history;
(e)
any physical or mental illness or disorder suffered by the inmate;
(f)
the inmate's potential for violent behaviour; and
(g)
the inmate's continued involvement in criminal activities.
|
Assignation
30.
(1) Le
Service assigne une cote de sécurité selon les catégories dites maximale,
moyenne et minimale à chaque détenu conformément aux règlements d’application
de l’alinéa 96z.6).
Motifs
(2)
Le Service doit donner, par écrit, à chaque détenu les motifs à l’appui de
l’assignation d’une cote de sécurité ou du changement de celle-ci.
Cote
de sécurité
17.
Le Service détermine la cote de sécurité à assigner à chaque détenu
conformément à l'article 30 de la Loi en tenant compte des facteurs suivants
:
a) la gravité de l'infraction
commise par le détenu;
b) toute accusation en
instance contre lui;
c) son rendement et sa
conduite pendant qu'il purge sa peine;
d) ses antécédents sociaux et
criminels, y compris ses antécédents comme jeune contrevenant s'ils sont
disponibles;
e) toute maladie physique ou
mentale ou tout trouble mental dont il souffre;
f) sa propension à la
violence;
g) son implication continue
dans des activités criminelles.
|
[16]
Section
12 of the Regulations outlines the process for making an involuntary transfer
of an inmate from one federal institution to another. This sections provides
as follows:
|
12. Before the
transfer of an inmate pursuant to section 29 of the Act, other than a
transfer at the request of the inmate, an institutional head or a staff
member designated by the institutional head shall
(a)
give the inmate written notice of the proposed transfer, including the
reasons for the proposed transfer and the proposed destination;
(b)
after giving the inmate a reasonable opportunity to prepare representations
with respect to the proposed transfer, meet with the inmate to explain the
reasons for the proposed transfer and give the inmate an opportunity to make
representations with respect to the proposed transfer in person or, if the
inmate prefers, in writing;
(c)
forward the inmate's representations to the Commissioner or to a staff member
designated in accordance with paragraph 5(1)(b); and
(d)
give the inmate written notice of the final decision respecting the transfer,
and the reasons for the decision,
(i) at least
two days before the transfer if the final decision is to transfer the inmate,
unless the inmate consents to a shorter period; and
(ii) within
five working days after the decision if the final decision is not to transfer
the inmate.
|
12.
Sauf dans le cas du transfèrement demandé par le détenu, le directeur du
pénitencier ou l'agent désigné par lui doit, avant le transfèrement du détenu
en application de l'article 29 de la Loi :
a) l'aviser par écrit du
transfèrement projeté, des motifs de cette mesure et de la destination;
b) après lui avoir donné la
possibilité de préparer ses observations à ce sujet, le rencontrer pour lui
expliquer les motifs du transfèrement projeté et lui donner la possibilité de
présenter ses observations à ce sujet, en personne ou par écrit, au choix du
détenu;
c) transmettre les
observations du détenu au commissaire ou à l'agent désigné selon l'alinéa 5(1)b);
d) l'aviser par écrit de la
décision définitive prise au sujet du transfèrement et des motifs de celle-ci
:
(i)
au moins deux jours avant le transfèrement, sauf s'il consent à un délai plus
bref lorsque la décision définitive est de le transférer,
(ii)
dans les cinq jours ouvrables suivant la décision, lorsque la décision
définitive est de ne pas le transférer.
|
[17]
The
procedure for the presentation of grievances by inmates is set out both in the
CCRA (sections 90 and 91) and the Regulations (sections 74 to 82). It is
important to set these out in their entirety:
|
Grievance
procedure
90. There
shall be a procedure for fairly and expeditiously resolving offenders’
grievances on matters within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, and the
procedure shall operate in accordance with the regulations made under
paragraph 96(u).
Access to
grievance procedure
91. Every
offender shall have complete access to the offender grievance procedure
without negative consequences.
Regulations
Offender
Grievance Procedure
74. (1)
Where an offender is dissatisfied with an action or a decision by a staff
member, the offender may submit a written complaint, preferably in the form
provided by the Service, to the supervisor of that staff member.
(2) Where a
complaint is submitted pursuant to subsection (1), every effort shall be made
by staff members and the offender to resolve the matter informally through
discussion.
(3) Subject to
subsections (4) and (5), a supervisor shall review a complaint and give the
offender a copy of the supervisor's decision as soon as practicable after the
offender submits the complaint.
(4) A
supervisor may refuse to review a complaint submitted pursuant to subsection
(1) where, in the opinion of the supervisor, the complaint is frivolous or
vexatious or is not made in good faith.
(5) Where a
supervisor refuses to review a complaint pursuant to subsection (4), the
supervisor shall give the offender a copy of the supervisor's decision,
including the reasons for the decision, as soon as practicable after the
offender submits the complaint.
75. Where a
supervisor refuses to review a complaint pursuant to subsection 74(4) or
where an offender is not satisfied with the decision of a supervisor referred
to in subsection 74(3), the offender may submit a written grievance,
preferably in the form provided by the Service,
(a) to
the institutional head or to the director of the parole district, as the case
may be; or
(b)
where the institutional head or director is the subject of the grievance, to
the head of the region.
76. (1) The
institutional head, director of the parole district or head of the region, as
the case may be, shall review a grievance to determine whether the
subject-matter of the grievance falls within the jurisdiction of the Service.
(2) Where the
subject-matter of a grievance does not fall within the jurisdiction of the
Service, the person who is reviewing the grievance pursuant to subsection (1)
shall advise the offender in writing and inform the offender of any other
means of redress available.
77. (1) In the
case of an inmate's grievance, where there is an inmate grievance committee
in the penitentiary, the institutional head may refer the grievance to that
committee.
(2) An inmate
grievance committee shall submit its recommendations respecting an inmate's
grievance to the institutional head as soon as practicable after the
grievance is referred to the committee.
(3) The
institutional head shall give the inmate a copy of the institutional head's
decision as soon as practicable after receiving the recommendations of the
inmate grievance committee.
78. The person
who is reviewing a grievance pursuant to section 75 shall give the offender a
copy of the person's decision as soon as practicable after the offender
submits the grievance.
79. (1) Where
the institutional head makes a decision respecting an inmate's grievance, the
inmate may request that the institutional head refer the inmate's grievance
to an outside review board, and the institutional head shall refer the
grievance to an outside review board.
(2) The
outside review board shall submit its recommendations to the institutional
head as soon as practicable after the grievance is referred to the board.
(3) The
institutional head shall give the inmate a copy of the institutional head's
decision as soon as practicable after receiving the recommendations of the
outside review board.
80. (1) Where
an offender is not satisfied with a decision of the institutional head or
director of the parole district respecting the offender's grievance, the
offender may appeal the decision to the head of the region.
(2) Where an
offender is not satisfied with the decision of the head of the region
respecting the offender's grievance, the offender may appeal the decision to
the Commissioner.
(3) The head
of the region or the Commissioner, as the case may be, shall give the
offender a copy of the head of the region's or Commissioner's decision,
including the reasons for the decision, as soon as practicable after the
offender submits an appeal.
81. (1) Where
an offender decides to pursue a legal remedy for the offender's complaint or
grievance in addition to the complaint and grievance procedure referred to in
these Regulations, the review of the complaint or grievance pursuant to these
Regulations shall be deferred until a decision on the alternate remedy is
rendered or the offender decides to abandon the alternate remedy.
(2) Where the
review of a complaint or grievance is deferred pursuant to subsection (1),
the person who is reviewing the complaint or grievance shall give the
offender written notice of the decision to defer the review.
82. In
reviewing an offender's complaint or grievance, the person reviewing the
complaint or grievance shall take into consideration
(a) any
efforts made by staff members and the offender to resolve the complaint or
grievance, and any recommendations resulting therefrom;
(b) any
recommendations made by an inmate grievance committee or outside review
board; and
(c) any
decision made respecting an alternate remedy referred to in subsection 81(1).
|
Procédure
de règlement
90.
Est établie, conformément aux règlements d’application de l’alinéa 96u),
une procédure de règlement juste et expéditif des griefs des délinquants sur
des questions relevant du commissaire.
Accès
à la procédure de règlement des griefs
91.
Tout délinquant doit, sans crainte de représailles, avoir libre accès à
la procédure de règlement des griefs.
Règlements
Procédure
de règlement de griefs des délinquants
74.
(1) Lorsqu'il est insatisfait d'une action ou d'une décision de l'agent, le
délinquant peut présenter une plainte au supérieur de cet agent, par écrit et
de préférence sur une formule fournie par le Service.
(2)
Les agents et le délinquant qui a présenté une plainte conformément au
paragraphe (1) doivent prendre toutes les mesures utiles pour régler la
question de façon informelle.
(3)
Sous réserve des paragraphes (4) et (5), le supérieur doit examiner la
plainte et fournir copie de sa décision au délinquant aussitôt que possible
après que celui-ci a présenté sa plainte.
(4)
Le supérieur peut refuser d'examiner une plainte présentée conformément au
paragraphe (1) si, à son avis, la plainte est futile ou vexatoire ou n'est
pas faite de bonne foi.
(5)
Lorsque, conformément au paragraphe (4), le supérieur refuse d'examiner une
plainte, il doit fournir au délinquant une copie de sa décision motivée
aussitôt que possible après que celui-ci a présenté sa plainte.
75.
Lorsque, conformément au paragraphe 74(4), le supérieur refuse d'examiner la
plainte ou que la décision visée au paragraphe 74(3) ne satisfait pas le
délinquant, celui-ci peut présenter un grief, par écrit et de préférence sur
une formule fournie par le Service :
a) soit au directeur du
pénitencier ou au directeur de district des libérations conditionnelles,
selon le cas;
b) soit, si c'est le
directeur du pénitencier ou le directeur de district des libérations
conditionnelles qui est mis en cause, au responsable de la région.
76.
(1) Le directeur du pénitencier, le directeur de district des libérations
conditionnelles ou le responsable de la région, selon le cas, doit examiner
le grief afin de déterminer s'il relève de la compétence du Service.
(2)
Lorsque le grief porte sur un sujet qui ne relève pas de la compétence du
Service, la personne qui a examiné le grief conformément au paragraphe (1)
doit en informer le délinquant par écrit et lui indiquer les autres recours
possibles.
77.
(1) Dans le cas d'un grief présenté par le détenu, lorsqu'il existe un comité
d'examen des griefs des détenus dans le pénitencier, le directeur du
pénitencier peut transmettre le grief à ce comité.
(2)
Le comité d'examen des griefs des détenus doit présenter au directeur ses
recommandations au sujet du grief du détenu aussitôt que possible après en
avoir été saisi.
(3)
Le directeur du pénitencier doit remettre au détenu une copie de sa décision
aussitôt que possible après avoir reçu les recommandations du comité d'examen
des griefs des détenus.
78.
La personne qui examine un grief selon l'article 75 doit remettre copie de sa
décision au délinquant aussitôt que possible après que le détenu a présenté
le grief.
79.
(1) Lorsque le directeur du pénitencier rend une décision concernant le grief
du détenu, celui-ci peut demander que le directeur transmette son grief à un
comité externe d'examen des griefs, et le directeur doit accéder à cette
demande.
(2)
Le comité externe d'examen des griefs doit présenter au directeur du
pénitencier ses recommandations au sujet du grief du détenu aussitôt que
possible après en avoir été saisi.
(3)
Le directeur du pénitencier doit remettre au détenu une copie de sa décision
aussitôt que possible après avoir reçu les recommandations du comité externe
d'examen des griefs.
80.
(1) Lorsque le délinquant est insatisfait de la décision rendue au sujet de
son grief par le directeur du pénitencier ou par le directeur de district des
libérations conditionnelles, il peut en appeler au responsable de la région.
(2)
Lorsque le délinquant est insatisfait de la décision rendue au sujet de son
grief par le responsable de la région, il peut en appeler au commissaire.
(3)
Le responsable de la région ou le commissaire, selon le cas, doit transmettre
au délinquant copie de sa décision motivée aussitôt que possible après que le
délinquant a interjeté appel.
81.
(1) Lorsque le délinquant décide de prendre un recours judiciaire concernant
sa plainte ou son grief, en plus de présenter une plainte ou un grief selon
la procédure prévue dans le présent règlement, l'examen de la plainte ou du
grief conformément au présent règlement est suspendu jusqu'à ce qu'une
décision ait été rendue dans le recours judiciaire ou que le détenu s'en
désiste.
(2)
Lorsque l'examen de la plainte ou au grief est suspendu conformément au paragraphe
(1), la personne chargée de cet examen doit en informer le délinquant par
écrit.
82.
Lors de l'examen de la plainte ou du grief, la personne chargée de cet examen
doit tenir compte :
a) des mesures prises par les
agents et le délinquant pour régler la question sur laquelle porte la plainte
ou le grief et des recommandations en découlant;
b) des recommandations faites
par le comité d'examen des griefs des détenus et par le comité externe
d'examen des griefs;
c) de toute décision rendue
dans le recours judiciaire visé au paragraphe 81(1).
|
ANALYSIS
1.
Did
the SDC breach the Applicant’s statutory rights to information by failing to
disclose additional information obtained from institutional staff for the
purpose of the third-level analysis?
Standard
of Review
[18]
In Canada (Attorney General) v.
Sketchley,
2005 FCA 404, [2005] F.C.J. No. 2056 (C.A.) (QL), the Federal Court of Appeal
affirmed the distinction to be made between judicial review on the grounds of procedural
fairness and the standard of review in other cases of substantial judicial
review (at paragraph 52 and 53). The pragmatic and functional analysis applies
only to the latter, whereas the former is reviewed on the basis of law and no
deference is due. This is what Mr. Justice Linden said at paragraph 53, in
citing the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Canadian Union of Public
Employees (C.U.P.E.) v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), 2003 SCC 29,
[2003] 1 S.C.R. 539, (CUPE):
CUPE directs a court, when reviewing a
decision challenged on the grounds of procedural fairness, to isolate any act
or omission relevant to procedural fairness (at para. 100). This procedural
fairness element is reviewed as a question of law. No deference is due. The
decision-maker has either complied with the content of the duty of fairness
appropriate for the particular circumstances, or has breached this duty.
[19]
Counsel
for the Applicant argues (at paragraphs 47 and 48 of his Memorandum of
Fact and Law) that the SDC expressly stated in his decision that institutional
staff were contacted to gather additional information for the purpose of the
third level analysis. The SDC did not disclose this information concerning his
recent behaviour at Pacific Institution, or a reasonably detailed summary was
not disclosed to the Applicant. By failing to provide the Applicant with the
Executive Summary before and after the decision was taken, Counsel for the
Applicant argues the SDC violated the Applicant’s statutory rights to
information pursuant to section 27 of the CCRA.
[20]
In
my view, the Applicant’s argument on this issue must fail for it is without
basis in law. Section 27 is not applicable to grievances regarding the security
classification of inmates. The applicable section pertaining to security
classification is set out in section 30 of the CCRA and the corresponding
procedures to follow are outlined in section 17 of the Regulations.
[21]
In
neither of these statutory provisions is an offender accorded the right to
disclosure of information prior to a decision on security classification. This
issue was dealt with by the British Columbia Supreme Court at paragraphs 57 to
62, in Dorcheid v. Kent Institution, [1998] B.C.J. No. 1866 (QL). In
this regard, I note the following observations by that Court as set out in
paragraphs 61 and 62:
However,
in contrast to an involuntary transfer, neither the Act nor the Regulation
contains any right for the inmate to make representations prior to a decision
on security reclassification. This also means that s. 27(1) of the Act has no
application to a decision on security reclassification, and an inmate has no
statutory right to disclosure of any information before the decision has been
taken. Thus, there is no statutory right to a hearing prior to a decision on
security reclassification. If any such right exists, it must arise either at
common law or from the Charter.
An
inmate who is dissatisfied with a decision on security reclassification does,
however, have some recourse in the grievance procedures required by s. 90 of
the Act (set out in detail in ss. 74-82 of the Regulations).
[22]
However,
in contrast to this the involuntary transfer to Kent Institution for example
would be governed by the disclosure provisions of subsection 27(2). But the
involuntary transfer is not what is at issue in this case. It is the third
level grievance regarding the Applicant’s security reclassification from medium
to maximum security.
[23]
In
my view, the SDC did not breach the Applicant’s statutory rights to information
by failing to disclose additional information obtained from institutional staff
for the purpose of the third-level analysis. The Applicant enjoyed no such
right to disclosure of information prior to the SDC’s decision to override the
Applicant’s security classification.
[24]
If
the Court is wrong on this interpretation, it adds that it agrees with
paragraphs 40, 41 and 44 on the Respondent's Memorandum of Fact and Law:
40. The
applicant was clearly aware of this past behavior; and that his behavior was a
serious concern for CSC officials because it constituted a potential threat to
the safety of the female employees.
41. In
an institutional environment, an inmate's behavior is a very important
consideration, as is the security of staff.
44. For
the Applicant to argue that he was not aware that his conduct with respect to
female staff would not be taken into consideration is to ignore the single
largest security concern that CSC has with respect to the Applicant.
- Did
the SDC commit a patently unreasonable error when he upheld the third
level grievance but declined to order a reassessment of the Applicant’s
security reclassification?
Standard
of review
[25]
In Dr.
Q. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, [2003] 1
S.C.R. 226, the Supreme Court of Canada established the following four factors
to consider to determine the applicable standard of review:
a. presence of a privative
clause or right of appeal
[26]
There
is no privative clause in the CCRA and in particular with respect to grievance
decisions. Parliament has recognized that offenders maintain their rights even
while in prison. There are extensive internal review mechanisms through which
inmates can pursue their disagreements with decisions and procedures followed
by the Respondent. The silence of the legislation renders this factor neutral
in the overall functional and pragmatic analysis and implies deference by the
reviewing court where the decision is fact based. The parties agree that the
decision to reclassify is based on the assessment of facts regarding the
Applicant’s history of sexually assaulting female staff.
b. relative
expertise of the tribunal vis-à-vis the Court
[27]
It
is trite law that there can be no competition between the expertise of prison
administrators and that of judges with respect to the administration of penitentiaries.
Those who are called to administer federal penal institutions have a twin role
to balance the protection of the public with the rehabilitation of its inmates.
The scales of justice with which judges must weigh their decisions are case
specific and demand not nearly as much expertise as the SDC for instance must
master. As such, the reviewing judge must accord an increased level of
deference to the SDC.
c. the purpose of the
statute
[28]
Section
30 is intended to give the Service the authority to classify inmates based on
information gleaned from a variety of sources. The purpose of classification is
not only to protect the public but also to ensure the rehabilitation of inmates
and ensure the prisons are safe work and living environments for both staff and
inmates. The classification and placement of the offender during the intake
assessment are key fact based determinations. Moreover, the annual
classification reviews of offenders as in this case may be overridden or
under-ridden by the SDC based on the specific facts surrounding an inmate’s
immediate past and/or future behaviour. This requires not only a careful review
of facts but also relies on the appropriate application of various policies and
guiding principles, including the CCRA and the Commissioner’s Directives and
Standard Operating Practices. This factor implies increased deference.
d. the nature of the
question
[29]
The
nature of the question at issue demands a high degree of deference. Not only is
the decision at the third level grievance largely fact specific, but the
decision not to change the Applicant’s classification from maximum back to
medium security is also based on the Applicant’s breach of the Behavioural
Agreement that was signed at the Pacific Institution on October 28, 2005.
[30]
As a
result of this review of the four factors in the pragmatic and functional
analysis, the standard of review is patent unreasonableness. After a careful
review of the Applicant’s affidavit and the certified copy of the substantive
record that was before the SDC, I do not find that it was patently unreasonable
for the SDC at the third-level grievance to uphold the findings of the
decision-makers who overrode the Applicant’s classification. There was more
than ample evidence before the SDC to suggest that the Applicant’s behaviour
while in the Pacific Institution gave pause to be concerned that the potential
for risk was not unfounded. It was therefore not inconsistent or patently
unreasonable for the SDC to find that there perhaps should have been more details
presented to justify the override in classification and also to decline to
reverse that decision.
[31]
Finally,
it should be noted that the SDC did order corrective action, in that the
decision provides as follows:
As corrective action, the Institution Head
of Kent Institution will ensure that any future security-classification reviews
are articulated with a detailed and justified rationale, so as to afford the
inmate the opportunity to know the information that was considered in making
the decision, in accordance with Standard Operating Practice 700-14, paragraph
23 and the Duty to Act Fairly.
3.
If
the response to the second question is affirmative, is the matter moot in any
event?
[32]
Having
reached a negative conclusion with respect to the second question, this matter
itself is moot. Finally, it has to be noted that at hearing, the respondent
filed the applicant's most recent Assessment for Decision (July 2006) from Kent
Institution which indicates:
RECOMMENDATION
Dec. # Decision Recommendation
71 OFFENDER
SECURITY LEVEL MAXIMUM
REGULAR
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT the application for
judicial review is dismissed. There is no award of costs.
“Michel Beaudry”
Email this Content