[2]
Mr
Spidel subsequently submitted another grievance in which he identified several
errors in the Commissioner’s Directive relating to Inmate Committees [CD 083].
His main concern is that CD 083 does not accord with Justice Mactavish’s
decision. He filed this latest grievance at the final, third-level of the
Offender Grievance Procedure based on his view that issues relating to the content
of Commissioner’s Directives should be brought directly to the Commissioner
himself. A delegate of the Commissioner, a Senior Deputy Commissioner [SDC],
concluded that Mr Spidel’s grievance essentially raised matters of general policy
that fell outside the ambit of the grievance process. The SDC therefore
rejected Mr Spidel’s grievance and suggested that he bring the matter before an
inmate committee, where members can make recommendations relating to matters
affecting the inmate population as a whole.
[3]
Mr
Spidel argues that the SDC erred in concluding that his complaint fell outside
the grievance procedure and that it should have been brought to an inmate
committee. He asks me to quash the SDC’s decision and refer the matter back for
reconsideration.
[4]
I
can find no basis for overturning the SDC’s decision and must, therefore,
dismiss this application for judicial review.
[5]
The
issue is whether the SDC erred in law.
II. The Legal Framework
(1) The Grievance Process
[6]
Offenders
are entitled to a fair and expeditious process for resolving grievances that
fall within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Corrections (Corrections
and Conditional Release Act, SC 1992, c 20, s 90 [CCRA]; provisions cited
are set out in an Annex).
[7]
The
Offender Grievance Procedure is set out in the Corrections and Conditional
Release Regulations, SOR/92-620 [CCRR]. It includes the following steps:
• an
offender who is dissatisfied with an action or decision of a staff member may
make a written complaint to the staff member’s supervisor (s 74(1));
• the
offender and staff must try to resolve the matter informally (s 74(2));
• the
supervisor must review the complaint and provide the offender with a copy of
his or her decision as soon as practicable (s 74(3));
• if the
offender is not satisfied with the decision, the offender may submit a
grievance to the institutional head (s 75(a));
• the
institutional head must review the grievance to determine whether it falls
within the jurisdiction of the Correctional Service of Canada [CSC] (s 76(1));
• if the
grievance does not fall within the CSC’s jurisdiction, the institutional head
must advise the offender in writing and inform the offender of any other
available remedy (s 76(2));
• the
institutional head must give the offender a copy of his or her decision as soon
as practicable (s 78);
• if the
offender is not satisfied with the decision, the offender can appeal to the
head of the region (s 80(1));
• the
offender can appeal the decision of the regional head to the Commissioner
(s 80(2));
• the
offender must be provided a copy of the regional head’s decision and the
Commissioner’s decision as soon as practicable (s 80(3)).
[8]
Further
details of the process are contained in Commissioner’s Directive 081 – Offender
Complaints and Grievances [CD 081]. It makes clear that offenders should begin the
process with a complaint to the supervisor of the staff member involved, unless
the supervisor is the Institutional Head, the Regional Deputy Commissioner, or
the Commissioner himself (s 13). In any case, the decision of the Commissioner
represents the final stage of the grievance process (s 15). CD 081 also sets
out the time frames within which decision makers at the various levels must
respond, depending on the priority of the complaint (s 18).
[9]
Additional
details can be found in Commissioner’s Directive 081-1 – Offender Complaint and
Grievance Process [CD 081-1]. It describes the four-level process set out
above. It confirms that the final decision-maker is the Commissioner (s 7).
Sometimes, inmates can file a complaint above the initial level. For example, a
complaint about inter-regional transfers, or a transfer to or from the Special
Handling Unit must go directly to the third level. The other exceptions,
mentioned above, arise when the complaint relates to the conduct of a senior
staff member; eg, a complaint about an institutional head should be made
at the second level to the regional head.
[10]
CD-081-1
lists some matters that cannot be grieved. For example, matters relating to
access to information or privacy must be made to the Information Commissioner
or the Privacy Commissioner, as the case may be. Mr Spidel points out that CD-081-1
does not state explicitly that complaints about Commissioner’s Directives
cannot be grieved.
(2) Inmate Committees
[11]
Offenders
are entitled to an opportunity to contribute to decisions of the CSC that
affect the inmate population as a whole, except security matters (CCRA, s 74).
[12]
Particulars
relating to inmate committees are set out in Commissioner’s Directive 083, the
document Mr Spidel argues contains numerous errors. However, it is clear that
CD 083 provides that inmate committees may make recommendations to the
institutional head in relation to decisions affecting the inmate population (s
10).
III. Did the SDC err in law?
[13]
Mr
Spidel argues that the SDC erred in concluding that his grievance did not fall
within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner and that he should have presented
his concerns about CD 083 to an inmate committee. Obviously, he says, the content
of a Commissioner’s Directive is within the Commissioner’s jurisdiction.
[14]
In
particular, he maintains that his complaint falls within the grievance
procedure because he is “an offender who is dissatisfied with an action or
decision of a staff member” (CCRR, s 74(1)). The “action or decision” is CD
083; the “staff member” is the Commissioner of Corrections.
[15]
I
cannot agree with Mr Spidel’s submissions.
[16]
It
is possible that the issue of a Commissioner’s Directive is an “action or
decision” of the Commissioner. But it is clear to me that a complaint about
the content of a Commissioner’s Directive does not fall within the Offender
Grievance Procedure.
[17]
Complaints
can be made about the conduct of a “staff member”. Is the Commissioner a staff
member in this context? In my view, he is not.
[18]
The
procedure provides that inmates should commence the grievance process by filing
a complaint with the staff member’s supervisor. It is not clear who the
Commissioner’s supervisor would be. The next steps would involve an
institutional head and a regional head. It seems unlikely that a decision of
the Commissioner’s supervisor, whoever that might be, would be reviewed by officials
subordinate to the Commissioner himself. Further, the final step would involve
review by the Commissioner, bringing the matter full circle back to the person
about whose conduct the offender is complaining in the first place. It is
unlikely that this process accommodates complaints about the Commissioner,
given that it creates a closed loop with the Commissioner himself having the
final word about the disposition of the complaint.
[19]
Accordingly,
I cannot conclude that the SDC erred in finding that Mr Spidel’s grievance did
not fall within the Offender Grievance Procedure. If the intention had been to
allow inmates to grieve Commissioner’s Directives, it is likely that CD-081-1,
which sets out circumstances where inmates can bring complaints directly to the
third-level, would so provide.
[20]
As
far as the alternative remedy suggested by the SDC, it is clear that inmate
committees can make recommendations about matters involving the inmate
population as a whole. Therefore, the SDC did not err in referring to that
potential alternative remedy. Her decision was consistent with the obligation
to inform the offender of another available remedy when a grievance is beyond
the jurisdiction of the CSC (CCRR, s 76(2)).
IV. Conclusion and Disposition
[21]
The
SDC did not err in concluding that Mr Spidel’s grievance fell outside the
jurisdiction of the Offender Grievance Procedure and should have been raised
with his inmate committee. Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for
judicial review. As Mr Spidel raised a matter of general public interest, there
is no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
1. The
application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
“James W. O’Reilly”
Annex
|
Corrections
and Conditional Release Act (SC 1992, c
20)
Inmate
input into decisions
74. The
Service shall provide inmates with the opportunity to contribute to decisions
of the Service affecting the inmate population as a whole, or affecting a
group within the inmate population, except decisions relating to security
matters.
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).
Corrections
and Conditional Release Regulations (SOR/92-620)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Commissioner’s
Directive 081: Offender Complaint and Grievance Procedure
Responsibilities
…
11. Grievors will:
- use
the complaint and grievance process as a means of redress when they
believe that they have been treated unfairly, or in a manner that is
not consistent with legislation or policy on matters within the
jurisdiction of the Commissioner;
…
13. Where
an offender is dissatisfied with an action or a decision by a staff member,
the offender may submit a written complaint, preferably on the form provided
by the Service. The initial submission will be at the complaint level unless
otherwise indicated in this directive or unless the supervisor of the staff
member in question is the Institutional Head, the Regional Deputy
Commissioner or the Commissioner.
…
15. The decision
of the Commissioner or his/her delegate constitutes the final stage of the
complaint and grievance process. Grievors who are not satisfied with the final
decision of the complaint and grievance process may seek judicial review of
the third-level grievance decision at the Federal Court within the time limit
prescribed in subsection 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act.
Commissioner’s
Directive 083: Inmate Committees
Responsibilities
…
10. The Inmate Committee will
make recommendations to the Institutional Head on decisions affecting the
inmate population, except decisions relating to security matters.
|
Loi
sur le système correctionnel et la mise en liberté sous condition (LC
1992, ch 20)
Participation
aux décisions
74. Le
Service doit permettre aux détenus de participer à ses décisions concernant
tout ou partie de la population carcérale, sauf pour les questions de
sécurité.
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.
Règlement
sur le système correctionnel et la mise en liberté sous condition (DORS/92-620)
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.
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;
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.
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.
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.
Directive
du commissaire 081 : Plaintes et griefs des délinquants
Responsabilités
[…]
11. Les plaignants:
- utiliseront
le processus de règlement des plaintes et griefs en vue d'obtenir une
réparation lorsqu'ils estiment avoir été traités de façon injuste ou
non conforme à la loi ou aux politiques relativement à des questions
qui relèvent de la compétence du commissaire;
[…]
13. Lorsqu'un
délinquant n'est pas satisfait de la mesure ou de la décision prise par un
membre du personnel, il peut présenter une plainte écrite, de préférence à
l'aide du formulaire fourni par le Service. La plainte sera d'abord présentée
au palier des plaintes, à moins d'indication contraire dans la présente
directive ou à moins que le surveillant de l'employé visé dans la plainte
soit le directeur de l'établissement, le sous-commissaire régional ou le
commissaire.
[…]
15. La
décision du commissaire ou de son représentant constitue l’étape finale du
processus de règlement des plaintes et griefs. Le plaignant qui n’est pas
satisfait de la décision finale rendue au troisième palier du processus de règlement
des plaintes et griefs peut faire une demande de révision judiciaire à la
Cour fédérale dans les délais prescrits au paragraphe 18.1(2) de la Loi sur
les Cours fédérales.
Directive
du commissaire 083: Comités de Détenus
Responsabilités
[…]
10. Le Comité de détenus doit
présenter des recommandations au directeur de l'établissement concernant les
décisions relatives à la population carcérale, sauf celles ayant trait à la
sécurité.
|
Email this Content