Date: 20011212
Docket: T-478-01
OTTAWA, Ontario, December 12, 2001
BEFORE: Rouleau J.
BETWEEN:
MICHEL MARINELLO
Plaintiff
AND:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendant
ORDER
[1] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
Date: 20011212
Docket: T-478-01
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 1362
BETWEEN:
MICHEL MARINELLO
Plaintiff
AND:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROULEAU J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review pursuant to s. 18.1 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, from a decision made by the chairperson of the Drummond Institution disciplinary court on February 14, 2001, finding the plaintiff guilty of the disciplinary offence mentioned in s. 40(k) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act ("the Act"). The plaintiff is seeking an order quashing the decision of February 14, 2001 and awarding just and fair compensation for the injury sustained.
[2] The plaintiff is currently an inmate at the Drummond Institution.
[3] On June 15, 2000 the plaintiff received a random selection urinalysis request pursuant to s. 54(d) of the Act, and the result of the test proved to be positive. On September 27, 2000, pursuant to s. 40(k) of the Act, he was found guilty by the independent chairperson Bernard Boudreau of taking an intoxicant into his body and was ordered to pay a $25 fine.
[4] Following this conviction a notice requiring a urinalysis was issued to the plaintiff on October 17, 2000 in which based on the fact that he was convicted on September 27, 2000 of taking an intoxicant into his body (disciplinary offence under s. 40(k) of the Act), Raymond Fortin, preventive security officer, was authorized pursuant to s. 71 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations ("the Regulations") to make a urinalysis.
[5] On October 17, 2000 the plaintiff provided a urine sample for analysis to identify the presence of intoxicants. On October 24, 2000 the sample proved to be positive.
[6] On October 27, 2000 the plaintiff received a disciplinary offence report in which he was charged pursuant to s. 40(k) of the Act of taking an intoxicant into his body.
[7] Then, on February 14, 2001, following a disciplinary hearing, independent chairperson Bernard Boudreau found the plaintiff guilty of the disciplinary offence mentioned in s. 40(k) of the Act and imposed a fine of $40, despite his defence that the evidence in support of the charge should not be admitted since it was obtained as the result of an unlawful search not authorized by ss. 54 and 55 of the Act and contrary to s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("the Charter").
[8] On March 16, 2001 the plaintiff filed an application for judicial review from the independent chairperson's decision convicting him.
[9] The only distinction between the facts in the case at bar and those in Rémi Royer, file Nos. T-634-01, T-635-01, T-636-01 and T-637-01, is that the plaintiff in the case at bar agreed to the request to give a urine sample. The arguments submitted by counsel for Mr. Marinello are identical to those made in Royer.
[10] The application for judicial review is dismissed for the same reasons as those given today in Rémi Royer's files Nos. T-634-01, T-635-01, T-636-01 and T-637-01, a copy of which is attached to these reasons for order.
OTTAWA, Ontario
December 12, 2001
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: T-478-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: Michel Marinello
- and -
Attorney General of Canada
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: November 20, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER: Rouleau J.
DATE OF REASONS: December 12, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Daniel Royer FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Nadia Hudon FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Labelle, Boudrault, Côté et associés FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE DEFENDANT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content