Langlois v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FC 776

Date: 20040527

Docket: T-1976-02

Citation: 2004 FC 776

Montréal, Quebec, the 27th day of May 2004

Present :          RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY

BETWEEN:

                                                      JEAN-PIERRE LANGLOIS

                                                                                                                                            Applicant

                                                                           and

                                             ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

                                                                           and

                                            CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA

                                                                                                                                      Respondents

Motion by the respondent to strike the applicant's application for judicial review.

                                            REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]                The applicant asked this Court to review the decision by the third level of Correctional Service Canada (CSC) on September 30, 2002, regarding the decision by the warden of the Donnacona Institution to suspend his visits with his spouse.

[2]                The applicant twice asked the warden to review the decision to suspend visits with his spouse.

[3]                It appeared that when the warden considers an application by an inmate to review the decision to suspend visits, new evidence submitted by the inmate or persons concerned in the matter is taken into account.

[4]                After the applicant had made two applications for review, the warden again decided on October 24, 2002 and January 23, 2003, to suspend the applicant's visits with his spouse in view of representations by the inmate and CSC personnel.

[5]                Consequently, the decision at the third level on September 30, 2002, confirming the Donnacona warden's decision on July 24, 2002, has no application at this time.

[6]                It appeared from the record as it stood that the effective decision according to which the applicant's visits with his spouse were suspended is that of January 23, 2003, not that of September 30, 2002.

[7]                Accordingly, whether this Court allows or dismisses the applicant's application for judicial review of the decision by the third-level decision-maker on September 30, 2002, will have no effect on the rights of the parties, since the applicant's visits with his spouse are no longer suspended pursuant to that decision.

[8]                Further, it appeared that Exhibit P-3, referred to by the respondent at the hearing of the instant motion, namely the Security Intelligence Report dated July 16, 2002, is actually the basis, the key point, on which any future relevant decision affecting the applicant could be taken, not the decision of July 24, 2002, as the applicant contended.

[9]                Accordingly, there is no good reason to uphold a challenge to the decision of September 30, 2002, which itself resulted from that of July 24, 2002.

[10]            The applicant's application for judicial review is thus clearly moot and is consequently hereby struck out, with costs.

Certified true translation

Suzanne M. Gauthier, C Tr, LLL

                                                             FEDERAL COURT

                                                      SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:

STYLE OF CAUSE:

T-1976-02

JEAN-PIERRE LANGLOIS

                                                                      Applicant

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

and

CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA

                                                                 Respondents

PLACE OF HEARING:                                 Montréal, Quebec)

DATE OF HEARING:                                   April 28, 2004

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:                      Richard Morneau, prothonotary

DATED:                                                          May 27, 2004

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: