Date: 20010216
Docket: T-144-01
Reference: 2001 FCT 77
Ottawa, Ontario, February 16, 2001
Before: Pinard J.
Between:
Yves Plamondon
Plaintiff
- and -
The Attorney General of Canada
Defendant
On amended notice of motion filed by the plaintiff on January 26, 2001 seeking a provisional remedy following his involuntary transfer from the Donnacona Institution, Quebec to the Atlantic Institution at Renous, New Brunswick.
ORDER
The plaintiff's motion is dismissed: costs to follow.
|
|
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
|
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
Date: 20010216
Docket: T-144-01
Reference: 2001 FCT 77
Between:
Yves Plamondon
Plaintiff
- and -
The Attorney General of Canada
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.
[1] By this motion the plaintiff, an inmate, is seeking an order to compel the responsible penitentiary authorities to return him to the Donnacona Institution, Quebec following his involuntary transfer to the Atlantic Institution at Renous, New Brunswick, until his application for judicial review seeking cancellation of the said transfer is heard.
[2] This type of provisional remedy requested by the plaintiff can only be granted if he is able to show that he can make out a prima facie case, that he will suffer irreparable harm if the remedy is not granted and that the balance of convenience is in his favour (see Manitoba (A.G.) v. Metropolitan Stores Ltd., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110).
[3] Assuming, without deciding the point, that a prima facie case has been made out, I feel that the plaintiff was not able to meet the other two requirements of the test.
[4] The evidence was that the effect of the plaintiff's transfer was to enable him to enter a regular prison population, whereas he was in involuntary administrative segregation at the Donnacona Institution. This situation certainly could not constitute "irreparable harm". On the remainder of the argument, the distance separating the plaintiff from his counsel and family, the fact that it was necessary for the plaintiff to adjust to a particular social life at his new place of detention and the plaintiff's needs relating to education in my opinion are only instances of inconvenience.
[5] As to the balance of convenience, I feel this is clearly in favour of the defendant. The evidence was that the plaintiff was no longer [TRANSLATION] "integrable" into the regular population in the Donnacona Institution. I therefore agree with the defendant's view that as the correctional authorities had a duty to ensure that the inmate would develop in surroundings which were as free of limitations as possible it was within their powers to take him out of involuntary administrative segregation and allow him to re-enter a regular population in another institution. I also entirely agree with my brother Blais J., who in Teale v. Canada (Attorney General) (October 13, 2000), T-1846-00, wrote in his analysis of the balance of convenience test:
[14] It is in the public interest that the Correctional Service be able to fulfil its mandate.
[6] Accordingly, I must attach greater weight to the public interest than to the mere inconveniences described above by the plaintiff.
[7] For all these reasons, the plaintiff's motion is dismissed: costs to follow.
|
|
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
|
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
February 16, 2001
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: T-144-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: Yves Plamondon v. Attorney General of Canada
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 5, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: February 16, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Daniel Rock FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Sébastien Gagné FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Rock, Vleminckx, Dury, Lanctôt et Associés FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE DEFENDANT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content