Date: 20020704
Docket: T-573-02
Ottawa, Ontario, the 4th dayof July, 2002
Present: the Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between:
RICHARD NAULT
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
ORDER
This application for judicial review to set aside the decision of the Chairperson of the Disciplinary Court at Cowansville Institution dated March 28, 2002, is dismissed with costs.
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LLB
Date: 20020704
Docket:: T-573-02
Neutral Citation: 2002 FCT 739
Between:
RICHARD NAULT
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] In this application for judicial review, the applicant seeks an order setting aside the decision of the Chairperson of the Disciplinary Court at Cowansville Institution (the Chairperson) dated March 28, 2002, finding the applicant guilty of the disciplinary offence set out in subsection 40(l) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C.1992, c. 20 (the Act).
[2] The applicant is an inmate at Cowansville Institution. On February 13, 2002, he received a "Notification to Provide a Urine Sample" under subsection 54(a) of the Act. He provided a 30-millilitre sample of urine, although he was asked to provide the minimum required sample of 40 millilitres. He refused to provide ten additional millilitres and to take advantage of the allotted period of two hours to do so. The applicant accordingly received a report of a disciplinary offence under subsection 40(l) of the Act for failing to provide the sample as requested. The Chairperson found him guilty of the offence as charged. The applicant is now seeking judicial review of that decision.
[3] The relevant provisions of the Act and the Commissioner's Directive read as follows:
Corrections and Conditional Release Act:
40. An inmate commits a disciplinary offence who
. . .
(l) fails or refuses to provide a urine sample when demanded pursuant to section 54 or 55;
40. Est coupable d'une infraction disciplinaire le détenu qui :
[. . .]
l) refuse ou omet de fournir l'échantillon d'urine qui peut être exigé au titre des articles 54 ou 55;
54.Subject to section 56 and subsection 57(1), a staff member may demand that an inmate submit to urinalysis
(a) where the staff member believes on reasonable grounds that the inmate has committed or is committing the disciplinary offence referred to in paragraph 40(k) and that a urine sample is necessary to provide evidence of the offence, and the staff member obtains the prior authorization of the institutional head;
(b) as part of a prescribed random selection urinalysis program, conducted without individualized grounds on a periodic basis and in accordance with any Commissioner's Directives that the regulations may provide for; or
(c) where urinalysis is a prescribed requirement for participation in
(i) a prescribed program or activity involving contact with the community, or
(ii) a prescribed substance abuse treatment program.
54.L'agent peut obliger un détenu à lui fournir un échantillon d'urine dans l'un ou l'autre des cas suivants :
a) il a obtenu l'autorisation du directeur et a des motifs raisonnables de croire que le détenu commet ou a commis l'infraction visée à l'alinéa 40k) et qu'un échantillon d'urine est nécessaire afin d'en prouver la perpétration;
b) il le fait dans le cadre d'un programme réglementaire de contrôle au hasard, effectué sans soupçon précis, périodiquement et, selon le cas, conformément aux directives réglementaires du commissaire;
c) l'analyse d'urine est une condition - imposée par règlement - de participation à un programme ou une activité réglementaire de désintoxication ou impliquant des contacts avec la collectivité.
55. Subject to section 56 and subsection 57(2), a staff member, or any other person so authorized by the Service, may demand that an offender submit to urinalysis
(a) at once, where the staff member or other authorized person has reasonable grounds to suspect that the offender has breached any condition of a temporary absence, work release, parole or statutory release that requires abstention from alcohol or drugs, in
55. L'agent ou toute autre personne autorisée par le Service peut obliger un délinquant à lui fournir un échantillon d'urine :
a) soit sur-le-champ lorsque la permission de sortir, le placement à l'extérieur ou la libération conditionnelle ou d'office sont assortis de conditions interdisant la consommation de drogues ou d'alcool et que l'agent ou la personne a des motifs raisonnables de
order to monitor the offender's compliance with that condition; or
(b) at regular intervals, in order to monitor the offender's compliance with any condition of a temporary absence, work release, parole or statutory release that requires abstention from alcohol or drugs.
soupçonner la contravention à une de ces conditions;
b) soit régulièrement lorsque la permission de sortir, le placement à l'extérieur ou la libération conditionnelle ou d'office sont assortis de conditions interdisant la consommation de drogues ou d'alcool.
Commissioner's Directives, No. 566-10, 2001-10-17, published under the authority of the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada:
8. Urine sample: a quantity of urine of at least 40 ml, supplied at one time, sufficient to permit analysis by an authorized laboratory.
8. Échantillon d'urine : un échantillon d'urine d'au moins 40 ml, fourni en une seule prise, suffisant pour en permettre l'analyse par un laboratoire autorisé.
[4] The applicant argues first that the Chairperson erred in finding him guilty because he had not received the notification to provide a urine sample. In my view, this allegation has no merit. The notification was, in fact, signed by the applicant on February 13, 2002, and states: "I, THE UNDERSIGNED, do hereby declare that I have been informed of the basis upon which this sample is required and understand the consequences of non-compliance with this
requirement. . . . ".
[5] Second, the applicant contends that the Chairperson erred in finding him guilty without giving him the opportunity to make representations against the requirement to provide a urine sample.
[6] The second heading in the notice deals with the objections that the inmate might submit before providing the sample:
When authorization is obtained, the inmate must be informed that he/she has up to 2 hours to submit any objections concerning the urine sample requirement to the Institutional Head or the Institutional Urinalysis Program Co-ordinator.
[7] Space is provided to indicate whether the applicant intends to submit objections or not, and another space is provided for the situation where objections are submitted, to indicate whether the demand to provide the sample continues or whether the demand to provide is cancelled. In this case, none of the spaces were filled in.
[8] In addition, the fifth heading of the notice tells the inmate to "read before signing". The applicant's signature, which had been the subject of roughly fifteen similar tests in the past, appears on the document.
[9] In light of these facts, I am of the view that it is reasonable to believe that the applicant was not prevented from submitting objections, since he was informed of his right to do so and he simply did not take advantage of that right.
[10] Lastly, the applicant contends that the Chairperson erred in justifying the vague and imprecise nature of the grounds for the demand to provide a urine sample, for security reasons.
[11] Unlike Demaria v. Regional Classification Board, [1987] 1 F.C. 74 (C.A.), at page 77, where no hint was given to the applicant of what the grounds were for believing that he had brought cyanide into the prison, the notification to provide a urine sample in this case (1) clearly told the applicant that the information came from a source; (2) gave the circumstances with respect to time ("the last weekend of January and the first weekend of February") and (3) stated that the applicant had been seen using it.
[12] At the disciplinary hearing, Mr.Châteauneuf, the staff member designated by the Correctional Service, testified that the applicant could not be given more information without endangering the safety of the informant. I am of the view that the notification given to the applicant, under the circumstances, contained a number of important details justifying the reasonable grounds that the prison authorities had for believing that the applicant had taken a narcotic into his body (see Picard v. Attorney General of Canada (December 6, 1995), T-1150-95).
[13] For all these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed with costs.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
July 4, 2002
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-573-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: Richard Nault v. Attorney General of Canada
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 4, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
DATED: July 4, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Daniel Royer FOR THE APPLICANT
Éric Lafrenière FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Labelle, Boudrault, Côté et Associés FOR THE APPLICANT
Avocats
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content