Date: 20081103
Docket: T-1215-07
Citation: 2008 FC 1220
Toronto, Ontario, November 3, 2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
STANLEY LEONARD
POMFRET
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Mr. Stanley Pomfret argues that a Senior Deputy Commissioner (SDC) of
the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) wrongly denied his request to be
reimbursed for certain craft materials that went missing when, in 2006, he was
transferred from one institution to another.
[2]
Mr. Pomfret asks me to overturn the SDC’s decision. I agree that the SDC
erred and will order a reconsideration by another decision-maker.
[3]
The issue is whether the SDC’s decision was unreasonable.
I.
Factual Background
[4]
In March 2006, Mr. Pomfret was transferred from Mountain Institution to
Kent Institution. His belongings were packed by fellow inmates under CSC
supervision. In June 2006, Mr. Pomfret made a claim for lost effects on the
basis that a large quantity of valuable craft materials – 650 packages of beads
and 80 packages of needles - had gone missing. He alleged that these materials
were worth about $2,000.00.
[5]
In August 2006, the Acting Warden at Mountain Institution agreed with
Mr. Pomfret that CSC policy had been violated in allowing inmates, rather than
CSC staff, to pack his possessions. However, she refused to allow Mr. Pomfret’s
claim for reimbursement because the items were, in fact, packed and shipped to
him.
[6]
Mr. Pomfret appealed the Acting Warden’s decision and, in November 2006,
an Assistant Deputy Commissioner once again denied his claim. He noted that Mr.
Pomfret had not produced receipts for the goods he claimed. In addition,
records showed that a large quantity of craft materials had, in fact, been
delivered to him at Kent.
[7]
Mr. Pomfret took his claim to the next level and, on May 17,
2007, the SDC again denied it. The SDC found that Mr. Pomfret had received and
signed for a large number of beads and needles at Kent. Further, Mr. Pomfret had
no proof that these items were in his possession at Mountain before his
transfer. Finally, the SDC noted that the goods in question were “consumable items” and, accordingly, were not normally compensable
under the applicable Commissioner’s Directive (being CD-234 – Claims Against
the Crown and the Offender Accident Compensation Program, para. 29 (see
Annex”A”)).
II.
Was the SDC’s Decision Reasonable?
[8]
I can overturn the SDC’s decision only if I find
that it was unreasonable.
[9]
Mr. Pomfret’s extensive submissions disclose
three main areas of concern in the SDC’s decision. First, the SDC found, as had
the previous decision-makers, that Mr. Pomfret had received many hobby
materials, including beads and needles, at Kent after his transfer from Mountain. Indeed, his hobby list is quite
extensive. But it does not appear to contain beads and needles in quantities
anywhere close to what Mr. Pomfret claims. None of the decision-makers
identified the particular materials in issue on his hobby list.
[10]
Second, Mr. Pomfret provided the SDC with a
letter from a fellow inmate, Mr. Gray, who stated that he had seen inmates at
Mountain exchanging Mr. Pomfret’s beads for tobacco. Being aware that they were
Mr. Pomfret’s property, Mr. Gray seized 400 vials of these beads himself. Since
he had also been transferred to Kent, he suggested that the beads should have been listed in the
inventory of his cell contents. A CSC analyst reviewed this letter and, in a
recommendation to the SDC regarding Mr. Pomfret’s claim, stated “though he has
provided a signed statement from another inmate, the validity of this statement
is uncertain”. The SDC did not refer to this statement or give any reason for
discrediting it.
[11]
Third, the SDC does not explain the finding that
beads and needles are “consumable items” and, therefore, not compensable. The
applicable Directive states that claims relating to “perishable and consumable
effects shall normally not be accepted”. However, there is an exception where
“the circumstances of the loss or damage justify the payment of compensation (e.g.
the property could not have been consumed or used prior to its loss or damage).”
[12]
This Directive appears to target goods that
could readily be consumed. It is not clear that it was intended to cover craft
materials. In addition, as the SDC himself noted, Mr. Pomfret’s effects were
packed contrary to CSC policy. The SDC does not address the question whether
these circumstances might justify the payment of compensation, even if the
beads and needles could be considered consumables. Nor does it seem likely that
these materials could have been “consumed or used” so quickly. Further, Mr.
Pomfret’s hobby permit specifically states that consumable items should not be
listed on it, which explains in part why Mr. Pomfret could not provide
satisfactory proof of his possession of the claimed goods.
[13]
Taking these concerns together, I find that the
SDC’s decision is not reasonable in the sense that it 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 SCC 9, at para. 47).
III.
Conclusion and Disposition
[14]
I
find that the SDC failed to consider important evidence supplied by Mr. Pomfret
and to analyze the issue whether he should be compensated for the loss of his
belongings, even if they could be classified as consumable items.
[15]
I
will order that another decision-maker reconsider Mr. Pomfret’s claim. As a
self-represented litigant, Mr. Pomfret is not entitled to counsel fees, but he
is entitled to disbursements.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S
JUDGMENT IS that
1.
The
application for judicial review is allowed. The matter is referred back to
another decision-maker for reconsideration.
2.
The
applicant is entitled to disbursements.
“James
W. O’Reilly”
Annex “A”
|
Commissioner’s
Directive -234 – Claims Against the Crown and the Offender Accident
Compensation Program, dated April 15, 2003
Perishable
and Consumable Effects
29.
Claims regarding perishable and consumable effects shall normally not be
accepted. A settlement offer may only be made for these items when the
circumstances of the loss or damage justify the payment of compensation (e.g.
the property could not have been consumed or used prior to its loss or
damage).
|
Directive du
commissaire – 234 – Réclamations
contre l’état et programme d’indemnisation des délinquants en cas d’accident,
datée du 15 avril 2003
Effets
périssables et de consommation
29.
Les réclamations ayant trait à des objets périssables ou de consommation en
sont normalement pas admises. Une offre de règlement ne doit être faite que
lorsque les circonstances entourant la perte de ces effets ou les dommages
causés à ceux-ci justifient le paiement d’un dédommagement (p.ex., si l’objet
n’a pu être consommé ou utilisé avant sa perte ou son endommagement).
|
Email this Content