T-919-00
Between:
NUNO QUINTA,
Plaintiff,
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Defendant.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the Court (per Denault J.) on June 26, 2000, at the end of his Reasons for Order, made the following order:
| The application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Correctional Service of Canada from transferring the plaintiff from the La Macaza Institution to the Port Cartier Institution is dismissed. |
CERTIFIED AT Ottawa, Ontario, June 27, 2000.
[Signed]
Geneviève Payer
Registry Officer
Certified true translation
Martine Brunet, LL. B.
Date: 20000626
Docket: T-919-00
Between:
NUNO QUINTA,
Plaintiff,
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Defendant.
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
DENAULT J.
[1] Pursuant to an application for judicial review of two decisions of the Correctional Service of Canada concerning this inmate, one made on April 26, 2000 to increase his medium security rating to high and the other made on May 2, 2000 to transfer him from the La Macaza Institution to the Port Cartier Institution, the plaintiff, by this application for an interlocutory injunction, is seeking to prevent his transfer to the Port Cartier Institution until there is a ruling on the application for judicial review.
[2] Inasmuch as the application for judicial review concerns two decisions with very different ramifications and Rule 302 of the Rules of this Court provides that an application for judicial review shall be limited to a single order in respect of which relief is sought, the plaintiff will have to clarify his intentions and make the necessary choices.
[3] However, the Court has to assume that the instant application for an interlocutory injunction is intended primarily to prevent the plaintiff being transferred to the Port Cartier Institution, and as such it is the decision of May 2, 2000 which should be reviewed, namely whether the plaintiff has been able to establish the existence of a serious question for consideration, that irreparable harm could be done to him and, finally, that the balance of convenience is in his favour.
[4] The evidence contained in the record indicates that the plaintiff's case is a fairly complex one. While an inmate at the La Macaza Institution, with a medium security rating, the plaintiff's conduct has been far from exemplary, so much so that on February 14, 2000 he had to be placed in administrative segregation. His case was promptly examined and it was concluded that he should be transferred first to the Drummond Institution - he objected to this, saying that there were people hostile to him, though he refused to name them - and then to the Archambault Institution. One of those concerned even suggested he be transferred to the Donnacona Institution. In short, there was no agreement whether his security rating should be increased from medium to high and where he should be transferred. The plaintiff argued that his security rating was increased to high expressly in order to transfer him to Port Cartier, but that the circumstances did not justify such an increase or such a transfer as his release was officially scheduled for July 14, 2000.
[5] The relevant portion of the unit manager's decision to transfer the plaintiff to the Port Cartier Institution should be set out below:
| After reviewing the documents filed and the recommendation of the CMT, and the dissenting opinions by the unit manager and PSO, I have decided to alter your security rating, which accordingly becomes maximum, on account of your severe problems of adjustment and a pattern of intimidation of other inmates and a breach of your behaviour contract. As a result of this decision a transfer to the Port Cartier maximum security institution is necessary, as your behaviour is compromising the security of our institution. We have verified your list of antagonists and none of them is currently imprisoned in the institution in question. For these reasons, we consider that an involuntary transfer is the only possible alternative to enable you to join a regular population and meet the objectives of your Correctional Plan . . .1 |
[6] At this stage of the proceedings the plaintiff has not established to the Court's satisfaction that the decision to raise his security rating was made illegally or that it is unreasonable. On the contrary, it must be assumed to be valid. So far as the decision to transfer the plaintiff because of his behaviour compromising the security of the La Macaza Institution is concerned, although some of those involved expressed dissents,2 the Court at this time sees no serious question for decision that could justify an alteration. Naturally, there may be some question as to the advisability of transferring for a few weeks an inmate who is officially to be released on July 14, 2000, but the Court does not have to get into that question as it is a matter for the prison authorities. In short, the Court is not persuaded that there is a serious question for decision which requires its intervention.
[7] The Court is also not persuaded that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm as the result of his transfer to Port Cartier.
[8] For these reasons, the application for an interlocutory injunction must be dismissed.
ORDER
The application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Correctional Service of Canada from transferring the plaintiff from the La Macaza Institution to the Port Cartier Institution is dismissed.
PIERRE DENAULT
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
June 26, 2000
Certified true translation
Martine Brunet, LL. B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: T-919-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: Nuno Quinta v. Attorney General of Canada
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 5, 2000
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: DENAULT J.
DATED: June 26, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Daniel Royer FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Martin Lamontagne FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Labelle, Boudrault, Côté & Associés FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE DEFENDANT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
__________________
1 Although the document suggests that it was the unit manager who took the decision to increase the security rating, it appears that this decision was first taken by the La Macaza Institution director on April 26, 2000. In his notice of application the plaintiff approved this interpretation, mentioning that the [TRANSLATION] ". . . decision given to the plaintiff on May 2, 2000 confirmed the decision of April 26, 2000 to increase the plaintiff's security rating to maximum".
2 The dissents had more to do with the raising of the security rating than the institution to which the plaintiff should be transferred.
Email this Content