Date: 20010705
Docket: T-1029-00
Ottawa, Ontario, the 5th day of July, 2001
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between:
DAVID CHITYAL
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed, with costs.
J.
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.
Date: 20010705
Docket: T-1029-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 744
Between:
DAVID CHITYAL
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This application for judicial review is asking the Court to set aside three decisions by Ms. Lise Bouthillier, Superintendent of the Federal Training Centre: the decision of May 12, 2000, ordering that the applicant be transferred from the Federal Training Centre, a minimum security institution, to the Leclerc Institution, a medium-security institution; the decision of April 18, 2000, raising his security classification from low to moderate; and the decision of April 13, 2000, placing the applicant in involuntary dissociation.
[2] On May 11, 2000, the applicant filed a motion in habeas corpus which was dismissed on May 18, 2000. The applicant was then transferred to the Leclerc Institution on that same day.
[3] On June 12, 2000, the applicant filed the notice of this application for judicial review.
[4] On July 11, 2000, the applicant filed agrievance under the grievance procedure provided in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20 (the "Act") and the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620.
[5] On July 18, 2000, the applicant was notified that the processing of his grievance was deferred in accordance with subsection 81(1) of the Act [sic - the Regulations], because he had filed an application for judicial review in this Court.
[6] At the date scheduled for his statutory release, November 9, 2000, the applicant was in fact released.
[7] In view of this factual context, the application for judicial review is dismissed for two reasons:
(1) the application is premature, since there is within the Correctional Service of Canada a grievance procedure which, in the circumstances, is appropriate, and which the applicant has not exhausted (see Giesbrecht v. Canada, [1998] F.C.J. no. 621 (T.D.) (QL)); and
(2) the application has become moot, the applicant being on statutory release since November 9, 2000 (see Fortin v. Donnacona Institution, [2000] F.C.J. no. 235 (F.C.A.) (QL)).
[8] Since the Giesbrecht decision, supra, was rendered well before the applicant filed this application for judicial review, and the applicant was given statutory release some eight months ago, I see no special reasons that might exempt the applicant, who has been unsuccessful, from the payment of the costs.
J.
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
July 5, 2001
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET NO: T-1029-00
STYLE: David Chityal v. Attorney General of Canada
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 5, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER OF PINARD J.
DATED: July 5, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Michel Aubin FOR THE APPLICANT
Domminic Guimond FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Michel Aubin
Montréal, Quebec FOR THE APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg
Attorney General of Canada [sic]
Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content