Date: 20100917
Unrevised certified
translation Docket:
T-1436-09
Citation:
2010 FC 931
Ottawa, Ontario, September 17, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Beaudry
BETWEEN:
LUMUMBA
OLENGA
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review under section 18.1 of the Federal Courts
Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, of the decision of the Appeal Division of the
National Parole Board (Appeal Division), dated July 24, 2009, upholding the
decision of the National Parole Board (NPB), dated April 16, 2009, to impose a
residency condition on the applicant’s statutory release as well as a special
condition not to be in the company of minors without being accompanied by a
responsible adult who has been informed about his sexual offending and authorized
by the supervising officer.
[2]
The
applicant has been serving a three-year sentence for sexual assault and incest
since April 2007. The offences were committed over a three-year period and the
victim was his nine-year-old daughter. The applicant denies having committed
these offences, in spite of DNA evidence establishing the assaults.
[3]
He
has not undergone treatment for the factors contributing to his criminality
during his incarceration. He claims to be a victim of a conspiracy by his
former spouse, the police and the courts. Having served two-thirds of his
sentence, the applicant was to be released on statutory release on April 23, 2009.
[4]
The
Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) recommended to the NPB before his release
date that he be subject to certain special conditions during his statutory
release. Among these conditions was a residency requirement.
[5]
The
applicant challenged this condition by way of written submissions to the NPB.
On April 16, 2009, the NPB imposed the condition of residency at a correctional
centre supervised by the CSC as well as other special conditions during his
statutory release.
[6]
The
applicant filed an appeal of that decision with the Appeal Division and it is
the decision of the Appeal Division which is the subject of the present
judicial review.
[7]
On
September 4, 2009, a warrant of suspension of the applicant’s statutory release
was issued because he had failed to comply with a normal condition of his
certificate. He was therefore returned to the La Macaza Institution.
[8]
On
December 23, 2009, the NPB reviewed his case and he was returned to a community
correctional centre, namely, the Laferrière Community Correctional Centre in
St-Jérôme, with the same special conditions. The warrant of committal for the
applicant expired on April 23, 2010.
[9]
At
the hearing on September 13, 2010, the applicant asked the Court to declare his
incarceration from April 22, 2009, to April 23, 2010, to have been unlawful and
unconstitutional.
[10]
His
principal argument is based on the provisions of subsections 129(3) and 130(1) of
the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20 (the Act).
He claims that the NPB’s decision on April 16, 2009, was not consistent with
the provisions set out in subsection 129(3) of the Act.
[11]
He
added that the NPB disregarded a report that was favourable to him prior to
making its decision (see applicant’s allegation, paragraph 6, oral submissions,
August 13, 2010).
[12]
However,
as the respondent noted, the decision was made under subsections 133(3) and
(4.1).
[13]
The
Court agrees with the respondent’s arguments on this question because the NPB,
as the releasing authority, may impose any conditions that it considers
reasonable and necessary in order to protect society and to facilitate the
successful reintegration into society of the offender (subsection 133(3)). It
may also impose other conditions set out in subsection 133(4.1).
[14]
In
spite of the fact that the Court is of the view that the applicant’s
application for judicial review has become moot given that he has served his
sentence and that his warrant of committal expired on April 23, 2010, the Court
intends to rule on the reasonableness of the Appeal Division’s decision upholding
the decision of April 16, 2009. Thus, the findings of the Appeal Division are
owed deference and the Court should intervene only if the decision does not
fall within a “range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in
respect of the facts and law” (Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R.
190, 2008 SCC 9, at paragraph 47).
[15]
In
the case at bar, the NPB analyzed the applicant’s record and his submissions of
March 9 and March 25, 2009. The Board therefore did take into account the
favourable report mentioned by the applicant in his oral submissions on August
13, 2010 (paragraph 6). It also took into account the seriousness of the sexual
offences committed and the applicant’s attitude of denial. The Board was also
concerned that his release plan did not, in its view, provide for adequate
supervision to prevent him from re-offending.
[16]
The
NPB added a caveat to its decision, saying it would be willing to review
the situation if the CSC felt that the situation had improved to the extent
that the condition imposed could be set aside.
[17]
The
Appeal Division upheld this decision and the Court is of the view that its
intervention is not warranted.
[18]
The
relevant legislation is appended to these reasons.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT
ORDERS that this application be
dismissed, without costs.
“Michel
Beaudry”
Certified
true translation
Sebastian
Desbarats, Translator
ANNEX
Federal
Courts Act (R.S.C,
1985, c. F-7)
|
18.1
(1) An application for judicial review may be made by the Attorney General of
Canada or by anyone directly affected by the matter in respect of which
relief is sought.
Time
limitation
(2)
An application for judicial review in respect of a decision or an order of a
federal board, commission or other tribunal shall be made within 30 days
after the time the decision or order was first communicated by the federal
board, commission or other tribunal to the office of the Deputy Attorney
General of Canada or to the party directly affected by it, or within any
further time that a judge of the Federal Court may fix or allow before or
after the end of those 30 days.
Powers
of Federal Court
(3)
On an application for judicial review, the Federal Court may
(a)
order a federal board, commission or other tribunal to do any act or thing it
has unlawfully failed or refused to do or has unreasonably delayed in doing;
or
(b)
declare invalid or unlawful, or quash, set aside or set aside and refer back
for determination in accordance with such directions as it considers to be
appropriate, prohibit or restrain, a decision, order, act or proceeding of a
federal board, commission or other tribunal.
Grounds
of review
(4)
The Federal Court may grant relief under subsection (3) if it is satisfied
that the federal board, commission or other tribunal
(a)
acted without jurisdiction, acted beyond its jurisdiction or refused to
exercise its jurisdiction;
(b)
failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or
other procedure that it was required by law to observe;
(c)
erred in law in making a decision or an order, whether or not the error
appears on the face of the record;
(d)
based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a
perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it;
(e)
acted, or failed to act, by reason of fraud or perjured evidence; or
(f)
acted in any other way that was contrary to law.
Defect
in form or technical irregularity
(5)
If the sole ground for relief established on an application for judicial
review is a defect in form or a technical irregularity, the Federal Court may
(a)
refuse the relief if it finds that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of
justice has occurred; and
(b)
in the case of a defect in form or a technical irregularity in a decision or
an order, make an order validating the decision or order, to have effect from
any time and on any terms that it considers appropriate.
|
18.1
(1) Une demande de contrôle judiciaire peut être présentée par le procureur
général du Canada ou par quiconque est directement touché par l’objet de la
demande.
Délai
de présentation
(2)
Les demandes de contrôle judiciaire sont à présenter dans les trente jours
qui suivent la première communication, par l’office fédéral, de sa décision
ou de son ordonnance au bureau du sous-procureur général du Canada ou à la
partie concernée, ou dans le délai supplémentaire qu’un juge de la Cour
fédérale peut, avant ou après l’expiration de ces trente jours, fixer ou
accorder.
Pouvoirs
de la Cour fédérale
(3)
Sur présentation d’une demande de contrôle judiciaire, la Cour fédérale peut
:
a) ordonner à l’office
fédéral en cause d’accomplir tout acte qu’il a illégalement omis ou refusé
d’accomplir ou dont il a retardé l’exécution de manière déraisonnable;
b) déclarer nul ou illégal,
ou annuler, ou infirmer et renvoyer pour jugement conformément aux
instructions qu’elle estime appropriées, ou prohiber ou encore restreindre
toute décision, ordonnance, procédure ou tout autre acte de l’office fédéral.
Motifs
(4)
Les mesures prévues au paragraphe (3) sont prises si la Cour fédérale est
convaincue que l’office fédéral, selon le cas :
a) a agi sans compétence,
outrepassé celle-ci ou refusé de l’exercer;
b) n’a pas observé un
principe de justice naturelle ou d’équité procédurale ou toute autre
procédure qu’il était légalement tenu de respecter;
c) a rendu une décision ou
une ordonnance entachée d’une erreur de droit, que celle-ci soit manifeste ou
non au vu du dossier;
d) a rendu une décision ou
une ordonnance fondée sur une conclusion de fait erronée, tirée de façon
abusive ou arbitraire ou sans tenir compte des éléments dont il dispose;
e) a agi ou omis d’agir en
raison d’une fraude ou de faux témoignages;
f) a agi de toute autre façon
contraire à la loi.
Vice
de forme
(5)
La Cour fédérale peut rejeter toute demande de contrôle judiciaire fondée
uniquement sur un vice de forme si elle estime qu’en l’occurrence le vice
n’entraîne aucun dommage important ni déni de justice et, le cas échéant,
valider la décision ou l’ordonnance entachée du vice et donner effet à
celle-ci selon les modalités de temps et autres qu’elle estime indiquées.
|
Corrections
and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20.
|
Referral
of cases to Chairperson of Board
129.(3)
Where the Commissioner believes on reasonable grounds that an offender who is
serving a sentence of two years or more is likely, before the expiration of
the sentence according to law, to commit an offence causing death or serious
harm to another person, a sexual offence involving a child or a serious drug
offence, the Commissioner shall refer the case to the Chairperson of the
Board together with all the information in the possession of the Service
that, in the Commissioner’s opinion, is relevant to the case, as soon as is
practicable after forming that belief, but the referral may not be made later
than six months before the offender’s statutory release date unless
(a)
the Commissioner formed that belief on the basis of behaviour of the offender
during the six months preceding the statutory release date or on the basis of
information obtained during those six months; or
(b)
as a result of any recalculation of the sentence under this Act, the
statutory release date of the offender has passed or less than six months
remain before that date.
Review
by Board of cases referred
130.(1)
Where the case of an offender is referred to the Board by the Service
pursuant to subsection 129(2) or referred to the Chairperson of the Board by
the Commissioner pursuant to subsection 129(3) or (3.1), the Board shall,
subject to subsections 129(5), (6) and (7), at the times and in the manner
prescribed by the regulations,
(a)
inform the offender of the referral and review, and
(b)
review the case,
and
the Board shall cause all such inquiries to be conducted in connection with the
review as it considers necessary.
Conditions
set by releasing authority
133.(3)
The releasing authority may impose any conditions on the parole, statutory
release or unescorted temporary absence of an offender that it considers
reasonable and necessary in order to protect society and to facilitate the
successful reintegration into society of the offender.
Residence
requirement
(4.1)
In order to facilitate the successful reintegration into society of an
offender, the releasing authority may, as a condition of statutory release,
require that the offender reside in a community-based residential facility or
in a psychiatric facility, where the releasing authority is satisfied that,
in the absence of such a condition, the offender will present an undue risk
to society by committing an offence listed in Schedule I before the
expiration of the offender’s sentence according to law.
|
Renvoi
du cas par le commissaire au président de la Commission
129.(3)
S’il a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu’un délinquant condamné à une
peine d’au moins deux ans commettra, s’il est mis en liberté avant
l’expiration légale de sa peine, soit une infraction causant la mort ou un
dommage grave à une autre personne, soit une infraction d’ordre sexuel à
l’égard d’un enfant, soit une infraction grave en matière de drogue, le
commissaire défère le cas au président de la Commission — et lui transmet
tous les renseignements qui sont en la possession du Service et qui, à son
avis, sont pertinents — le plus tôt possible après en être arrivé à cette
conclusion et au plus tard six mois avant la date prévue pour la libération
d’office; il peut cependant le faire moins de six mois avant cette date dans
les cas suivants :
a) sa conclusion se fonde sur
la conduite du délinquant ou sur des renseignements obtenus pendant ces six
mois;
b) la date prévue pour la
libération d’office du délinquant est, en raison de tout nouveau calcul de la
durée de sa peine prévu à la présente loi, déjà passée ou tombe dans cette
période de six mois.
Examen
par la Commission
130.(1)
Sous réserve des paragraphes 129(5), (6) et (7), la Commission informe le
détenu du renvoi et du prochain examen de son cas — déféré en application des
paragraphes 129(2), (3) ou (3.1) — et procède, selon les modalités réglementaires,
à cet examen ainsi qu’à toutes les enquêtes qu’elle juge nécessaires à cet
égard.
Conditions particulières
133.(3) L’autorité compétente peut
imposer au délinquant qui bénéficie d’une libération conditionnelle ou
d’office ou d’une permission de sortir sans escorte les conditions qu’elle
juge raisonnables et nécessaires pour protéger la société et favoriser la
réinsertion sociale du délinquant.
Assignation
à résidence
133.(4.1)
L’autorité compétente peut, pour faciliter la réinsertion sociale du
délinquant, ordonner que celui-ci, à titre de condition de sa libération
d’office, demeure dans un établissement résidentiel communautaire ou un
établissement psychiatrique si elle est convaincue qu’à défaut de cette
condition la commission par le délinquant d’une infraction visée à l’annexe I
avant l’expiration légale de sa peine présentera un risque inacceptable pour
la société.
|
Email this Content