Date: 20011207
Docket: T-2351-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 1349
BETWEEN:
EMILE MENNES
Applicant
and
LUCIE McCLUNG, OLE INGSTRUP, MICHEL ROY, KAREN WISEMAN,
LIZ ESHKROD, THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS,
THE CORECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA,
THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF CANADA,
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision rendered by the Acting Assistant Commissioner Karen J. Wiseman, Correctional Service of Canada ("CSC") of Inmate Grievance Presentation ("Third level"), Reference No. V4000A004355 under subsection 4(g) and sections 90 and 91 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (the "Act").
FACTS
[2] The applicant is an inmate at Warkworth Institution in Campbellford, Ontario.
[3] The applicant has been working as a grievance clerk for Warkworth at the office of the Institutional Grievance Co-ordinator for approximately two and a half (2½) years.
[4] The applicant is aware of the policy and the procedure governing the grievance process at Warkworth Institution.
[5] On February 18, 2000, the applicant began a group complaint with fellow inmate Helmut Buxbaum.
[6] The complaint was entered in regards to the state of some of the laundered bed linens that had been returned to the applicant.
[7] The applicant has described the condition of the bed linens to be "absolutely disgusting", with "nose pickings baked along one edge", "permanently stained with urine and other bodily emissions" (see page 6, paragraph 12 of the affidavit of Emile Mennes, applicant's record).
[8] The applicant's original complaint was denied and consequently, the applicant appealed the decision through the First level grievance (Institutional Warden), the Second level grievance (Regional) and subsequently the Third (and final) level grievance (National). The applicant's complaint was denied at each level.
[9] In regards to the content of the applicant's Third level grievance, the applicant sought to be issued new bed linens and in addition, he requested that the unit laundry room be converted into a full scale laundromat so that the inmates at Warkworth could have the privilege of laundering their own bed linens.
[10] On September 8, 2000, the Acting Assistant Commissioner Karen J. Wiseman denied the applicant's Third level appeal with the provision of reasons on both grounds.
PERTINENT LEGISLATION
| 3. The purpose of the federal correctional system is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by
(a) carrying out sentences imposed by courts through the safe and humane custody and supervision of offenders; and
(b) assisting the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens through the provision of programs in penitentiaries and in the community.
|
|
3. Le système correctionnel vise à contribuer au maintien d'une société juste, vivant en paix et en sécurité, d'une part, en assurant l'exécution des peines par des mesures de garde et de surveillance sécuritaires et humaines, et d'autre part, en aidant au moyen de programmes appropriés dans les pénitenciers ou dans la collectivité, à la réadaptation des délinquants et à leur réinsertion sociale à titre de citoyens respectueux des lois.
|
|
|
|
|
| 4. The principles that shall guide the Service in achieving the purpose referred to in section 3 are
[...]
(g) that correctional decisions be made in a forthright and fair manner, with access by the offender to an effective grievance procedure;
|
|
4. Le Service est guidé, dans l'exécution de ce mandat, par les principes qui suivent :
[...]
(g) ses décisions doivent être claires et équitables, les délinquants ayant accès à des mécanismes efficaces de règlement de griefs;
|
|
|
|
|
| 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).
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
| 91. Every offender shall have complete access to the offender grievance procedure without negative consequences.
|
|
91. Tout délinquant doit, sans crainte de représailles, avoir libre accès à la procédure de règlement des griefs.
|
|
|
|
|
ISSUES
[11] 1. Did CSC make a reviewable error in denying the applicant's Third level appeal?
2. Is the determination of the outcome of the applicant's grievance at the Third level grievance appropriately delegated by the Commissioner of Corrections to the Acting Assistant Commissioner Karen J. Wiseman?
ANALYSIS
1. Did CSC make a reviewable error in denying the applicant's Third level appeal?
[12] No, the CSC did not make a reviewable error in denying the applicant's Third level appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[13] In Tehrankari v. Canada (Correctional Service), [2000] F.C.J. 495, Lemieux J. recently defined the applicable standard of review of a decision by the Federal Commissioner of the Correctional Service when applying the grievance procedure contained in Section 90 of the Act. He held:
[para 33] A word needs to be said about the standard of review applicable in this case keeping in mind the type of decision made and the decision-maker (see Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817. In Baker, supra, L'Heureux-Dubé J. pointed out it was held in Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, a decision which related to the determination of a question of law in that case, (the interpretation of the exclusion provisions in section 2 of the Immigration Act as they relate to the definition of Convention refugee) made by the Immigration and Refugee Board, was subject to a standard of review of correctness but on other questions, the standard of review varied.
[...]
[para 44] To conclude on this point, I would apply a correctness standard if the question involved is the proper interpretation of section 24 of the Act; however, I would apply the standard of reasonableness simpliciter if the question involved is either the application of proper legal principles to the facts or whether the refusal decision to correct information on the offender's file was proper. The patently unreasonable standard applies to pure findings of fact. (Subsection 18.2(4) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7.)
[14] The decision to deny the applicant's Third level appeal was based on pure findings of fact and therefore, the appropriate standard of review is patently unreasonable.
[15] The applicant's arguments presented on his Third level appeal were similar to the ones previously put forward at the earlier levels with the additional argument of a laundromat to be accessible to the inmates at Warkworth.
[16] Subsection 82(a) of the Regulations applies on an appeal of a complaint or a grievance. The provision reads as follows:
| 82. In reviewing an offender's complaint or grievance, the person reviewing the complaint or grievance shall take into consideration
(a) any efforts made by staff members and the offender to resolve the complaint or grievance, and any recommendations resulting therefrom; [...]
|
|
82. Lors de l'examen de la plainte ou du grief, la personne chargée de cet examen doit tenir compte :
(a) des mesures prises par les agents et le délinquant pour régler la question sur laquelle porte la plainte ou le grief et des recommandations en découlant;
|
|
|
|
|
[17] In the present case, the "efforts made by staff members" resulted in an exchange of the soiled bed linens the applicant complained of in his grievance, yet he remains to date dissatisfied with his bed linens, pillow and mattress, but there is nothing that justify the Court to intervene.
2. Is the determination of the outcome of the applicant's grievance appropriately delegated by the Commissioner of Corrections to the Acting Assistant Commissioner Karen J. Wiseman?
[18] Yes, the determination of the outcome of the applicant's grievance was appropriately delegated by the Commissioner of Corrections to the Acting Assistant Commissioner Karen J. Wiseman.
[19] The decision of the applicant's Third level grievance was rendered by the Acting Assistant Commissioner Karen J. Wiseman. The applicant claims that subsections 80(2) and 80(3) of the Regulations state that the Commissioner of Corrections, Ms. Lucie McClung, should have been the one to hear his appeal and not the Acting Assistant Commissioner Karen J. Wiseman. The applicant relies upon subsections 80(2) and 80(3) of the Regulations and the long established rule of delegatus non potest delegare as a principle of interpretation or statutory construction.
[20] However, according to the respondent, at each level of the applicant's grievance process, his complaint was reviewed by the appropriate party designated under the Act and the Regulations. Sections 75-82 of the Regulations provide for the grievance process and there is clearly no requirement under the Act or the Regulations for the Commissioner of Corrections, to individually or directly review complaints at the Third level appeal or at any other level. In addition, it would be impractical for the Commissioner of Corrections to have to review all the grievances made by every inmate in the country, at each level of appeal.
[21] The resolution to this issue is found in several sources: section 97 of the Act, section 98 of the Act, Commissioner's Directive Number 081 dated June 22, 1998 entitled Offender Complaints and Grievances (CD 081), the inclusion printed at the bottom of the decision of the Commissioner (Third level grievance - National) and lastly subsection 2(2) of the Act. They will be treated below in this order. It is the interaction between these multiple sources that allowed for the delegation of authority to the Acting Assistant Commissioner Karen J. Wiseman by the Commissioner to pronounce on the final stage of the grievance process.
[22] Section 97 of the Act pertains to the Commissioner having the authority to issue Rules:
| 97. Subject to this Part and the regulations, the Commissioner may make rules
(a) for the management of the Service;
(b) for the matters described in section 4; and
(c) generally for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Part and the regulations.
|
|
97. Sous réserve de la présente partie et de ses règlements, le commissaire peut établir des règles concernant :
a) la gestion du Service;
b) les questions énumérées à l'article 4;
c) toute autre mesure d'application de cette partie et des règlements.
|
|
|
|
|
[23] Section 98 of the Act allows for the creation of Commissioner's Directives:
| 98. (1) The Commissioner may designate as Commissioner's Directives any or all rules made under section 97.
(2) The Commissioner's Directives shall be accessible to offenders, staff members and the public.
|
|
98. (1) Les règles établies en application de l'article 97 peuvent faire l'objet de directives du commissaire.
(2) Les directives doivent être accessibles et peuvent être consultées par les délinquants, les agents et le public.
|
|
|
|
|
[24] Commissioner's Directive entitled Offender Complaints and Grievances (CD 081) reads at paragraphs 19 and 20:
| 19. An offender, who is not satisfied with the decision from the Regional Deputy Commissioner, may submit a grievance to the Assistant Commissioner, Corporate Development, through the Institutional Grievance Coordinator or through the District Office. A grievance must normally be submitted within ten working days of receipt of the reply at the regional level. An offender may also grieve at this level in cases where action was not taken in accordance with the Regional Deputy Commissioner's decision.
20. The decision of the Assistant Commissioner, Corporate Development constitutes the final stage of the Offender Complaints and Grievance process.
|
|
19. Le délinquant qui est insatisfait de la décision du sous-commissaire régional peut soumettre un grief au commissaire adjoint, Développement organisationnel, par l'entremise du coordonnateur des griefs de l'établissement ou du bureau de district. Le grief doit normalement être présenté dans les dix jours ouvrables suivant la réception de la réponse au niveau régional. Un délinquant peut aussi présenter un grief à ce niveau lorsque les mesures prescrites par le sous-commissaire régional n'ont pas été mises en application.
20. La décision du commissaire adjoint, Développement organisationnel, constitue l'étape finale du processus de règlement des plaintes et des griefs des délinquants.
|
|
|
|
|
[25] The next source is the inclusion printed in the decision of the Commissioner (Third level grievance - National), found at the bottom of the page above the signature, and which reads as follows:
| The Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada has authorized the Assistant Commissioner, Corporate Development (ACCD), Michel Roy, to exercise the powers, duties, and functions given to him under Section 80(2) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, 1992. This authorization remains in effect until such time as it is withdrawn in writing.
Accordingly, this decision by the ACCD is to be considered the conclusion of the inmate grievance system.
|
|
Le Commissaire du Service correctionnel du Canada a autorisé le Commissaire adjoint, Développement organisationnel, Michel Roy, à exercer les pouvoirs et les fonctions qui lui sont conférés en vertu du paragraphe 80(2) du Règlement sur le système correctionnel et la mise en liberté sous condition (1992). Cette autorisation demeure en vigueur jusqu'à ce qu'elle soit révoquée par écrit.
Par conséquent, la décision du Commissaire adjoint, Développement organisationnel constitue l'étape finale du processus de règlement des plaintes et griefs des détenus.
|
|
|
|
|
[26] However, in order to answer the specific issue in question that being, can Assistant Commissioner Michel Roy delegate his authority to an Acting Assistant Commissioner for the purpose of rendering a final decision in the grievance process? The ultimate solution to this question is found in subsection 2(2) of the Act. The French version of this provision is more instructive than the English version and therefore has been reproduced first, followed by the English version:
| Délégation
(2) Sauf dans les cas visés à l'alinéa 96b) et sous réserve de la présente partie, les pouvoirs et fonctions conférés par celle-ci au commissaire et au directeur du pénitencier sont, en cas d'absence, d'empêchement ou de vacance de leur poste, respectivement exercés par le suppléant ou par la personne qui est alors responsable du pénitencier.
|
|
Exercise of powers, etc.
(2) Except as otherwise provided by this Part or by regulations made under paragraph 96(b),
(a) powers, duties and functions that this Part assigns to the Commissioner may only be exercised or performed by the Commissioner or, where Commissioner is absent or incapacitated or where the office is vacant, by the person acting in the place of the Commissioner; and
(b) powers, duties and functions that this Part assigns to the institutional head may only be exercised or performed by the institutional head or, where institutional head is absent or incapacitated or where the office is vacant, by the person who, at the relevant time, is in charge of the penitentiary.
|
|
|
|
|
[27] In summary, the Acting Assistant Commissioner Karen Wiseman held the proper authority by virtue of the aforementioned sources in rendering her final decision of the grievance process under subsections 80(2) and 80(3) of the Act.
[28] It is my opinion that there is no reason warranting the intervention of this Court as the decision of the Acting Assistant Commissioner does not reveal any reviewable errors.
[29] Therefore, this application for judicial review should be dismissed.
Pierre Blais
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
December 7, 2001
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-2351-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: Emile Mennes - and - Lucie McClung and others
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: November 28, 2001 REASONS FOR ORDER: the Honourable Mr. Justice Blais DATED:, December 7, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Emile MennesFOR APPLICANT
Ms. Sogie SabetaFOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Emile Mennes FOR APPLICANT Campbellford, Ontario
Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content