Date: 20251126

Docket: T-1249-23

Citation: 2025 FC 1882

Toronto, Ontario, November 26, 2025

PRESENT: Madam Justice Whyte Nowak

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

I. Overview

[1] The Applicant is a federal inmate at Warkworth Institution [Warkworth] which is administered by Correctional Service of Canada [CSC]. The Applicant filed a grievance related to the decision of the Correctional Manager [CM] to limit inmates’ access to the laundry room facilities at Warkworth. He seeks judicial review of the February 28, 2023, Offender Final Level Grievance Response of the Assistant Commissioner, Policy [AC] [Final Decision] denying his grievance. The Applicant submits that the Final Decision is unreasonable and procedurally unfair.

[2] For the reasons that follow, I am dismissing this application as I find that the Decision is reasonable, and the Applicant’s allegation of bias is wholly unsubstantiated.

II. Facts

A. The Applicant’s complaint about changes to Unit 5 laundry room access

[3] In an Offender Compliant Presentation dated May 4, 2022, the Applicant complained about changes to the laundry system which resulted in the CM “punishing all inmates in Unit 5 for the actions of one inmate while in purpose or effect, continu[ing] to reward this very inmate for continued abusive actions.”

[4] The Applicant stated that since 1999 he has enjoyed access to the laundry room during his leisure time including, evening hours between 5:00 pm to 10:30 pm, as well as throughout the day on weekends and holidays. According to the Applicant, this changed when the CM became in charge of the unit and an unidentified inmate took a dryer lint trap from the laundry room leading the CM to close laundry rooms in the evenings and on weekends except for laundry room workers. The Applicant complained that the inmate was “rewarded” despite continually harassing other inmates which has gone unaddressed by CSC staff.

[5] The Applicant requested that the laundry rooms be reopened, the CM be removed from Unit 5 and that CSC staff stop protecting and rewarding the inmate responsible for the laundry room changes.

[6] The Applicant received an Offender Complaint Response dated June 6, 2022, in which the Applicant’s grievance was denied for the following reasons:

The decision to close the laundry room during the evening is a step to mitigate risk and prevent actions such as “muscling and theft”. As such only agreed upon employed inmates have access to the laundry area. They do launder personal and institutional effects. Although timelines may become somewhat inconvenient it is the best way to ensure safety and security of the institution.

B. The Applicant’s pursuit of his grievance

[7] The Applicant filed an Offender Initial Grievance Presentation on July 18, 2022 [Initial Grievance], adding additional arguments related to the lack of justification for the difference in treatment between Unit 5 and other units and an allegation that the CM was encouraging “muscling” on Unit 5. The Applicant says that not only does his laundry now take two or more days to get done, but these changes have led to safety and security risks associated with laundry workers extorting money and canteen from inmates to have their personal clothing laundered. The Applicant submits that the new rules have also robbed him of an aspect of his rehabilitation needs under subsection 3(b) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, SC 1992, c 20 [CCRA].

[8] Some of the corrective actions requested by the Applicant were: (i) an investigation into the CSC’s cover-up and abuse of power; (ii) a request that the Applicant be able to use the laundry rooms as previously allowed; and (iii) the CM be removed from Unit 5.

[9] The Applicant’s Initial Grievance was denied by the decision of the Acting Warden dated August 5, 2022 [First Level Decision] who pointed out that there is no requirement to open the laundry rooms during leisure hours.

C. The Applicant’s Offender Final Level Grievance Presentation

[10] The Applicant considered that the First Level Decision failed to respond to the relevant issues and provided “unreasonable excuses” in defence of the CM’s actions. On December 6, 2022, the Applicant filed an Offender Final Level Grievance Presentation providing examples of bias and challenging the failure of the AC to disclose information related to the incident which led to the new access rules. He alleged a “cover-up” to protect abuses of power by the CSC including by the CM who he alleged was encouraging criminal activity by limiting access to the laundry room.

[11] The Applicant included a section in his Final Level Grievance entitled, “Facts to be Admitted,” which included questions, such as: “Was the laundry room closed after the inmate stole the lint trap from the clothes dryer?” and “Does the WI Inmate Hand Book [sic] allow inmates to use the washer and dryers for their laundry?”

[12] The Applicant also noted that he had not received copies of the original submissions of grievances.

D. The Final Decision

[13] The AC noted that his review of the Offender Final Level Grievance Presentation included the Applicant’s submissions, corresponding responses, relevant policies and legislation, and relevant documents from the Applicant’s Offender Management System file which included the reports of staff interviews conducted as part of the review at the national level.

[14] The Final Decision denied the Applicant’s Grievance on the basis that: (i) the decision to close the laundry room in the evening was taken as a step to ensure the safety and security of the institution and to prevent theft and muscling and was not an act of punishment; (ii) the Applicant’s laundry is still able to be washed by laundry workers; (iii) there was no information to support the Applicant’s allegations that staff acted in a manner that encourages criminal activity; and (iv) the Applicant’s original submission though delayed, had been returned to the Applicant with an apology and therefore required no further action.

III. Preliminary Issue

[15] The Respondent has objected to evidence in the Applicant’s affidavit sworn July 4, 2023 [Applicant’s Affidavit] for two reasons.

[16] First, the Applicant’s Affidavit attaches documents that were not before the AC when he made the Final Decision, namely: excerpts of the Correctional Services Canada, Warkworth Institution Inmate Handbook, (1 September 2017) at page 40 (Exhibit A) [Inmate Handbook], and excerpts from The Honourable Lousie Arbour, Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at The Prison for Women (Kingston: April 1994) (Exhibit C) [Arbour Report]. The Respondent relies on well-established law that holds that judicial review of an administrative tribunal should be based on the record that was before the decision maker and none of the recognized exceptions to this rule, apply (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22 [Access Copyright] at paras 19-20).

[17] While the Applicant did not make submissions as to why Exhibits A and C should be accepted by the Court, he did note that both the Inmate Handbook and the Arbour Report were referred to in his Offender Final Level Grievance Presentation. This is accurate and I therefore find that both documents are admissible under the first exception in Access Copyright, which allows background information to assist the Court.

[18] The Respondent’s second objection is that paragraphs 12-17 of the Applicant’s Affidavit contain argument and opinion contrary to Rule 81 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106. These paragraphs provide evidence related to past grievances that the Applicant judicially reviewed, as well as excerpts from the Arbour Report which the Applicant relies on to show a history of CSC “provid[ing] a bias[ed] and dysfunctional grievance process.” While the Respondent may disagree with the Applicant’s argument, these paragraphs are not argumentative and given that they are directed to the Applicant’s argument of bias, I shall allow them.

IV. Issues and Standard of Review

[19] The following issues related to the Final Decision have been raised:

1. Does the Final Decision fail to address or consider relevant facts and evidence?

2. Does the Final Decision reveal bias?

[20] The applicable standard of review of a decision on its merits is reasonableness as articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov]. Reasonableness review seeks to ensure that a decision contains “an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis … that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” (Vavilov at para 85). The Court must engage in a robust review while showing deference to the expertise of the administrative tribunal below and must refrain from reweighing or reassessing the evidence (Vavilov at paras 94, 125).

[21] As to the issue of bias, this is a matter going to procedural fairness. The threshold for establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias is a high one (R v RDS, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para 113) and requires that the Applicant show that a reasonable and informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically—and having thought the matter through—would conclude that it is more likely than not that the decision maker, whether consciously or not, would not decide the matter fairly (Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369 at 394).

V. Analysis

A. The Final Decision does not fail to address or consider relevant facts and evidence

[22] The Applicant makes three arguments relating to evidence and facts he submits were ignored by the AC in coming to the Final Decision.

[23] First, the Applicant suggests that the AC ignored the fact that the CM acted contrary to section 39 of the CCRA by punishing all inmates for the act of a single inmate who the Applicant says the CM has identified but chose not to disclose.

[24] I agree with the Respondent that it was reasonable for the AC to find that there was no evidence to support the allegation that the Applicant’s access to the laundry room was intended to punish another inmate and the Applicant has not identified any such evidence in the record beyond his own speculation. Nor did the AC fail to respond to the Applicant’s request for an admission related to the unnamed inmate noting that the “cases of other inmates cannot be discussed in accordance with the Privacy Act.” While the Applicant may disagree with the AC’s finding that the changes were made for safety reasons, the AC was responsive to this aspect of the Applicant’s grievance.

[25] Second, the Applicant says the AC ignored his evidence that the Inmate Handbook provides that “[e]ach living area should have a washer and dryer installed on each range, so that [inmates] can wash [their] own clothing.” As the Respondent points out, the Inmate Handbook was neither listed, attached nor mentioned in the Applicant’s Offender Final Grievance Presentation and therefore I find no failure in responsive justification on the part of the AC in not having addressed it.

[26] Third, the Applicant submits that the AC ignored his argument that the effect of the limited access inmates have to laundry services breaches section 70 of the CCRA, which requires that the CSC take all reasonable steps to ensure the living conditions of inmates are safe. The Applicant argues that the changes to laundry room access pose a threat to his mental health and rehabilitation. This argument is also without merit: the Applicant has not pointed to any specific evidence that was ignored and the Applicant’s safety argument was squarely addressed by the AC.

B. The Applicant has failed to establish his allegations of bias

[27] The Applicant contends that the CSC grievance process has been proven to be biased and dysfunctional pointing to his previous unlawful program suspensions that he says also interfered with his rehabilitation under subsection 3(b) of the CCRA.

[28] The Applicant further submits that the CSC has demonstrated a long-standing history of disrespecting inmate rehabilitation needs and its “abuse of power” is prevalent throughout the grievance process. According to the Applicant, the grievance process is biased and unreliable and the Respondent does not have clean hands on this application.

[29] In support of these allegations, the Applicant relies on excerpts of the Arbour Report and judicial review decisions in which grievance decisions of the CSC were found to be unreasonable, which according to the Applicant, “paints a troubling picture of CSC officials” and justifies a finding of bias by this Court.

[30] The excerpts from the Arbour Report have nothing to do with the Applicant, or the Final Decision or even Warkworth, and are therefore wholly irrelevant. Nor has the Applicant shown any link to his past experience with the grievance process at Warkworth to the matters at issue in this application. The only issue that is before the Court on this application is the very bald allegation that the Respondent and CSC do not have clean hands on this application.

[31] There is simply nothing in the evidence to suggest that a reasonable and informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically—and having thought the matter through—would conclude that it is more likely than not that the AC, whether consciously or not, did not decide the matter fairly or consider the Applicant’s Final Grievance in a fair and open-minded manner. The Applicant has wholly failed to substantiate this very serious allegation which makes it improper (Anwar v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 7 at para 6).

VI. Costs

[32] The Respondent requested an unspecified amount of costs in her Memorandum of Argument and made no submissions on costs at the hearing. I am therefore denying costs.

VII. Conclusion

[33] The Applicant has failed to meet his burden of showing that the Final Decision is unreasonable, nor has he demonstrated that he was denied procedural fairness in the manner in which it was arrived at. Accordingly, this application is dismissed without costs.

JUDGMENT in T-1249-23

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The application is dismissed without costs.

"Allyson Whyte Nowak"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: