Date: 20110204
Docket: T-2159-09
Citation: 2011 FC 133
Toronto, Ontario, February 4, 2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Mandamin
BETWEEN:
|
|
ALLAN ARTHUR CRAWSHAW
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
The
Applicant, Mr. Allan Arthur Crawshaw, applies for judicial review of the
decision of the Senior Deputy Commissioner (the Commissioner) on October 27,
2009 denying the Applicant’s grievance about the implementation of a stand-to
count at the Mission Institution in British Columbia where the Applicant is
a serving inmate.
[2]
The
Applicant grieved about the implementation of a 22:40 stand-to count. A
“stand-to count”, as the name suggests, requires prisoners to stand up for a
count by Correctional Services officers. The Applicant raised a number of
objections in his grievance about the 22:40 stand-to count. Since the grievance
involved a policy matter instituted by the Commissioner, it proceeded directly
to the highest order of grievance, a third level grievance. The Commissioner
denied the grievance.
[3]
The
Applicant now applies for judicial review focusing on one issue: that the
Commissioner failed to consider that the 22:40 stand-to count adversely and
disproportionably affected him and other elderly inmates.
[4]
For
reasons that follow, I am denying this application for judicial review.
Background
[5]
The
Applicant is a 62 year old inmate at the Mission Institution, a medium security
institution. He is serving a life sentence with no eligibility for parole for
25 years until May 17, 2015. Due to his age and his various activities in
prison including study and tutoring, the Applicant chooses to go to bed between
20:30 to 21:00 hours.
[6]
A
“stand-to count” is defined in Commissioner’s Directive 566-4 – Inmate Counts
and Security Patrols as follows:
A formal count of inmates in a standing
position, facing the counting stall member to ensure facial identification is
made except in cases where exemptions for medical conditions or physical
limitations have been identified.
[7]
The
Bulletin was issued in response to the recommendations of a Coroner’s Inquest
and a report by the Officer of the Correctional Investigator into Deaths in
Custody. The Jury recommendations at the Coroner’s Inquest into the death of an
inmate at the Collins Bay Institution included:
1.
It is
recommended that correctional service of Canada (CSC) undertake a feasibility
study on making the count when the cells are locked for the night a stand-to
count.
2.
It is
recommended that CSC issue a security bulletin reinforcing the existing
requirement that ensures correctional staff confirm that an inmate is alive and
breathing during a formal count and identify the manner by which such
verification is made.
3.
It is
recommended that every count be done by a correctional officer (CO) should
verify that there is a living and breathing inmate in each occupied cell.
The Office of the Correctional
Investigator’s report on Deaths in Custody also discussed the failure of
correctional officers to ensure that inmates are still alive in their cells as
an issue that frequently arose in a review of deaths in custody from 2001 to
2005.
[8]
On
July 10, 2009, Correctional Services Canada (CSC) issued a Security Branch
Bulletin setting out a change with respect to stand-to counts at federal
institutions. The Bulletin provided that stand-to counts must be conducted as
follows:
·
For
maximum, medium, and multi-level security institutions including women’s
institutions there will be two stand-to counts;
·
One of the
two stand-to counts must be completed between the hours of 18:00 and 24:00
[9]
Following
receipt of the Bulletin, CSC staff at Mission Institution consulted with the
Inmate Committee. On July 16, 2009, Acting Warden Corinne Justason announced
that it had been determined that it would be least disruptive to incorporate
the stand-to count into the unit lock up count at 22:40 hours.
[10]
The
Applicant filed a third level grievance on July 17, 2009 in response to the
implementation of the 22:40 stand-to count raising a number of objections and
requesting the 22:40 stand-to count be removed as it was arbitrary, capricious
and without legal justification.
[11]
The
Applicant argued the Bulletin did not have the force of law as it was only a
directive for administrative purposes. He submitted the CSC must consider the
health factor of all elderly prisoners referencing section 87 of the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act quoting: “the Service shall take into
consideration an offender’s state of health and healthcare needs (a) in all
decisions affecting the offender …” He likens the stand-to count as punishment
by means of sleep deprivation . He declares CSC is in violation of section11 of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and raises an argument for
procedural fairness invoking section 7 of the Charter. He contends the
stand-to count did not ensure the security of any prisoner, staff member or
Canadian citizen. He alleged it was discrimination against him because of
age. Finally, he claimed there was no consultation with inmates. In
short, the Applicant raised a broad range of issues in grieving the 22:40
stand-to count.
[12]
His
grievance was denied by the Commissioner on October 27, 2009.
Decision
Under Review
[13]
In
the Offender Grievance Response dated October 27, 2009, the Commissioner
responded to the Applicant’s grievance, grouping the issues the Applicant
raises into the four areas. Since the Applicant focuses on one issue, the
impact of the 22:40 stand-to count on himself and elderly inmates, I have extracted
and summarized the portions of the Commissioner’s decision relevant to the
issue the Applicant addresses in this judicial review.
[14]
Issue
One: Security Bulletin: the Commissioner stated the Bulletin’s
directive on a late night stand-to count is in response to the Corner’s Inquest
and the Death in Custody Report recommendations. As such the regulations
are not punishment but part of an effort to save lives. Further, exemptions to
the stand-to counts exist for medical conditions or physical limitations.
[15]
Issue
Two: Danger of Being Awoken: the Commissioner noted that Paragraph 11 of CD
566-4 provides that inmates with medical conditions or physical limitations
deemed by the Chief of Health Services as unable to respond to, or perform a
stand-to count request, are exempt. In such cases inmates must be awake and
signal the staff member through an alternative means, normally a hand signal.
There is no indication that the 22:40 count poses a significant health risk to
the (inmate) population as a whole.
[16]
Issue
Three Targets the Elderly: the Commissioner wrote “There is no indication
why you believe the stand-to counts punish the elderly more than other
offenders. There is nothing specific as to who must attend the stand-to as the
Bulletin applies to all.”
[17]
Issue
Four: Offender Participation: the Commissioner noted the Inmate
Committee was consulted. A number of other times were considered and the 22:40
count was determined to be the most efficient and least disruptive. The morning
unlock is 07:00 providing for 8 hours between counts.
[18]
The
Commissioner denied the Applicant’s grievance in each of the above four issue
categories addressing the whole of the subject matter of the grievance. The
above extracted responses from those categories in the Commissioner’s decision
relate to the issue the Applicant raises in this judicial review.
Legislation
[19]
In
respect of health and safety of inmates, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, 1992, c. 20
(the CCRA) provides:
|
|
|
|
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.
4. The
principles that shall guide the Service in achieving the purpose referred to
in section 3 are
…
(d) that the
Service use the least restrictive measures consistent with the protection of
the public, staff members and offenders;
(e) that
offenders retain the rights and privileges of all members of society, except
those rights and privileges that are necessarily removed or restricted as a
consequence of the sentence;
…
(g) that
correctional decisions be made in a forthright and fair manner, with access
by the offender to an effective grievance procedure;
…
(h) that
correctional policies, programs and practices respect gender, ethnic,
cultural and linguistic differences and be responsive to the special needs of
women and aboriginal peoples, as well as to the needs of other groups of
offenders with special requirements;
…
70. The
Service shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that penitentiaries, the
penitentiary environment, the living and working conditions of inmates and
the working conditions of staff members are safe, healthful and free of
practices that undermine a person’s sense of personal dignity.
…
87. The
Service shall take into consideration an offender’s state of health and
health care needs
(a) in all
decisions affecting the offender, including decisions relating to placement,
transfer, administrative segregation and disciplinary matters; and
(b) in the
preparation of the offender for release and the supervision of the offender.
|
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. Le Service est guidé, dans
l’exécution de ce mandat, par les principes qui suivent :
…
d) les mesures nécessaires à la
protection du public, des agents et des délinquants doivent être le moins
restrictives possible;
e) le délinquant continue à jouir des
droits et privilèges reconnus à tout citoyen, sauf de ceux dont la
suppression ou restriction est une conséquence nécessaire de la peine qui lui
est infligée;
…
g) ses décisions doivent être claires
et équitables, les délinquants ayant accès à des mécanismes efficaces de
règlement de griefs;
…
h) ses directives d’orientation
générale, programmes et méthodes respectent les différences ethniques,
culturelles et linguistiques, ainsi qu’entre les sexes, et tiennent compte
des besoins propres aux femmes, aux autochtones et à d’autres groupes
particuliers;
…
70. Le Service prend toutes mesures
utiles pour que le milieu de vie et de travail des détenus et les conditions
de travail des agents soient sains, sécuritaires et exempts de pratiques
portant atteinte à la dignité humaine.
…
87. Les décisions concernant un
délinquant, notamment en ce qui touche son placement, son transfèrement, son
isolement préventif ou toute question disciplinaire, ainsi que les mesures
préparatoires à sa mise en liberté et sa surveillance durant celle-ci,
doivent tenir compte de son état de santé et des soins qu’il requiert.
|
[20]
The
inmate grievance procedures are set out in the Regulations Respecting
Corrections and the Conditional Release and Detention of Offenders (SOR/92-620) and are
appended in part to this judgment.
Issues
[21]
The
Applicant submits the Commissioner failed to address the central issue raised
in the grievance, namely that the 22:40 stand-to count adversely and
disproportionately affects the Applicant and other elderly inmates. The
Applicant expresses the issue as whether the Commissioner improperly declined
to exercise his jurisdiction.
[22]
The
Respondent submits the issues are whether the Applicant was denied procedural
fairness and whether the Commissioner committed a reviewable error based on the
standard of review.
[23]
In
my view, the issues in this judicial review are:
a) Did the
Commissioner fail to address the issue that the stand-to count adversely and
disproportionately affected the Applicant and other elderly inmates thereby
committing a breach of procedural fairness?
b) Was the
Commissioner’s response reasonable?
Standard
of Review
[24]
There are now only two
standards of review: reasonableness and correctness. A detailed analysis of
which standard to apply in a given case is not required if it has been
determined in earlier jurisprudence. Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC
9
[25]
The standard of review for decisions made pursuant to the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act was addressed by the Federal Court of Appeal in
Sweet v Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 51. (Sweet)
[26]
In Sweet, the Federal Court of Appeal held that correctness
applied to questions of law which include issues of procedural fairness,
whereas the reasonableness would apply to the application of legal principles
to fact and the standard of patent unreasonableness (now reasonableness) would
apply to findings of fact. Para.14 in Sweet confirms the application of
these standards in CSC grievance procedures:
In assessing the standard of review for prisoners' grievance
decisions, the Applications Judge adopted the analysis set out by Lemieux J. in
Tehrankari v. Correctional Service of Canada (2000), 188 F.T.R. 206
(T.D.) at paragraph 44. After conducting a pragmatic and functional analysis,
Lemieux J. concluded that a correctness standard would apply if the question
involved the proper interpretation of the legislation, a standard of
reasonableness simpliciter would apply if the question involved an
application of the proper legal principles to the facts, and a patently
unreasonable standard would apply to pure findings of fact.
[27]
Accordingly,
the Commissioner’s findings of fact and of mixed law and fact should be
evaluated on a standard of reasonableness. In
reviewing the impugned decisions against the reasonableness standard, the Court
will consider whether these decisions under review fall within a range of
possible acceptable outcomes which are defensible in light of the facts and the
law. Dunsmuir at para. 47
Analysis
[28]
The
Applicant submits that, given the purpose and role of the grievance process in
maintaining a safe, humane and lawful correctional system, the grievance
process should provide inmates with an opportunity to be heard and to seek
redress in a forthright and fair manner.
[29]
The
Applicant submits that the Commissioner failed to address one of the central
issues he raised in his grievance, namely that he and other elderly inmates
were adversely and disproportionately affected by the 22:40 stand-to count, and
that he was seeking some type of accommodation based on his age. Instead of
addressing this issue of whether the elderly should be accommodated, the
Applicant contends the Commissioner only looked at whether the elderly were
specifically targeted.
[30]
The
Applicant submits that the Commissioner’s failure to directly address the
central issue in a grievance is a wrongful failure to exercise jurisdiction and
statutory power. His specific submission on this point had been:
There are many elderly prisoners
including myself, who will be impacted by the unnecessary late count. Many
times, because of the stress of the everyday prison life, I have been forced to
retire early to bed in order to reduce the stress and anxiety and get enough
rest for next strenuous day, and now I will be discriminated against because of
my age.
[31]
The
Applicant now submits the core of his grievance was not whether the elderly
were “specifically targeted” but whether the elderly should be accommodated.
Did the
Commissioner fail to address the issues raised by the Applicant?
[32]
Although
the Applicant now frames the issue of whether the elderly should be
accommodated as the central issue, there is nothing in his third level
grievance to suggest that this was the central issue. In his third level
grievance, the Applicant raised myriad issues. He was not merely seeking
accommodation for himself or for other elderly inmates in respect of the 22:40
stand-to count but rather was seeking to remove the 22:40 stand-to count
altogether.
[33]
In
the response, the Commissioner explained the purpose of the stand-to count as
being to save lives. The Commissioner also explained that the policy does not
specifically target the elderly and that the Applicant did not provide any
reason why he believed the stand-to counts punished the elderly more than other
offenders.
[34]
The
Applicant, in his submissions, accepts the elderly are not targeted within the
prison population since the Bulletin applies to all inmates. The
Applicant now submits he is disproportionately affected by the late night
stand-to count because of his age and the Commissioner failed to address his
grievance in terms of adverse impact of the 22:40 stand-to count.
[35]
In
my view the Commissioner adequately addressed the Applicant’s grievance
about adverse impacts by: first, pointing out that the stand-to
count was implemented in response to recommendations to save lives; second,
noting there was no information that 22:40 stand-to count adversely affected
other elderly inmates; and third, indicating that there is provision for
exemptions from the stand-to count for medical and physical limitations.
Was the Commissioner’s
response reasonable?
[36]
The
Applicant cites Wild v Canada, 2004 FC 942 to support
his claim that an inmate has the right to a restful night’s sleep without being
unnecessarily awakened. In that case, the applicant inmate was purposely
awakened two to three times a night. This is not the situation the Applicant
now faces with the regularly scheduled stand-to count at 22:40.
[37]
The
Commissioner noted there is an eight hour span between the 22:40 stand-to count
and the 7:00 morning unlock count. As such, I consider the Commissioner’s
finding that the 22:40 stand-to count allows for an appropriate period for
sleep as reasonable.
[38]
The
Commissioner was mindful that medical exemptions are available to inmates who
qualify and apply for them. At no point did the Applicant address the option of
seeking of a personal exemption based on medical or physical limitations.
[39]
The
onus was on the Applicant to show some basis for his contention that the
stand-to count posed a significant health risk to elderly inmates. While the
Applicant may be personally unhappy with the time of the stand-to count, there
was nothing to show other elderly inmates were negatively affected especially
given the fact that an unbroken eight hour span is available for sleep and
exemptions are available for medical or physical limitations.
Conclusion
[40]
I
find the Commissioner’s response to the Applicant’s grievance adequately
addressed the issue the Applicant now raises in this judicial review.
[41]
I
further find the Commissioner’s response satisfies the reasonableness
requirements of justification, transparency and intelligibility, and clearly
falls within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes, as set out in Dunsmuir
at para. 47. The Commissioner’s response to the Applicant’s third-level
grievance was reasonable.
[42]
I
dismiss this application for judicial review.
[43]
I
make no order for costs.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1.
The
application for judicial review is dismissed.
2.
No
order for costs is made.
“Leonard S. Mandamin”
APPENDIX
Regulations
Respecting Corrections and the Conditional Release and Detention of Offenders (SOR/92-620) (the Regulations)
|
74. (1) Where
an offender is dissatisfied with an action or a decision by a staff member,
the offender may submit a written complaint, preferably in the form provided
by the Service, to the supervisor of that staff member.
(2) Where a
complaint is submitted pursuant to subsection (1), every effort shall be made
by staff members and the offender to resolve the matter informally through
discussion.
(3) Subject to
subsections (4) and (5), a supervisor shall review a complaint and give the
offender a copy of the supervisor's decision as soon as practicable after the
offender submits the complaint.
(4) A
supervisor may refuse to review a complaint submitted pursuant to subsection
(1) where, in the opinion of the supervisor, the complaint is frivolous or
vexatious or is not made in good faith.
(5) Where a
supervisor refuses to review a complaint pursuant to subsection (4), the
supervisor shall give the offender a copy of the supervisor's decision,
including the reasons for the decision, as soon as practicable after the
offender submits the complaint.
75. Where a
supervisor refuses to review a complaint pursuant to subsection 74(4) or
where an offender is not satisfied with the decision of a supervisor referred
to in subsection 74(3), the offender may submit a written grievance,
preferably in the form provided by the Service,
(a) to the
institutional head or to the director of the parole district, as the case may
be; or
(b) where the
institutional head or director is the subject of the grievance, to the head
of the region.
76. (1) The
institutional head, director of the parole district or head of the region, as
the case may be, shall review a grievance to determine whether the
subject-matter of the grievance falls within the jurisdiction of the Service.
(2) Where the
subject-matter of a grievance does not fall within the jurisdiction of the
Service, the person who is reviewing the grievance pursuant to subsection (1)
shall advise the offender in writing and inform the offender of any other
means of redress available.
77. (1) In the
case of an inmate's grievance, where there is an inmate grievance committee
in the penitentiary, the institutional head may refer the grievance to that
committee.
(2) An inmate
grievance committee shall submit its recommendations respecting an inmate's
grievance to the institutional head as soon as practicable after the
grievance is referred to the committee.
(3) The
institutional head shall give the inmate a copy of the institutional head's
decision as soon as practicable after receiving the recommendations of the
inmate grievance committee.
78. The person
who is reviewing a grievance pursuant to section 75 shall give the offender a
copy of the person's decision as soon as practicable after the offender
submits the grievance.
79. (1) Where
the institutional head makes a decision respecting an inmate's grievance, the
inmate may request that the institutional head refer the inmate's grievance
to an outside review board, and the institutional head shall refer the
grievance to an outside review board.
(2) The
outside review board shall submit its recommendations to the institutional
head as soon as practicable after the grievance is referred to the board.
(3) The
institutional head shall give the inmate a copy of the institutional head's
decision as soon as practicable after receiving the recommendations of the
outside review board.
80. (1) Where
an offender is not satisfied with a decision of the institutional head or
director of the parole district respecting the offender's grievance, the
offender may appeal the decision to the head of the region.
(2) Where an
offender is not satisfied with the decision of the head of the region
respecting the offender's grievance, the offender may appeal the decision to
the Commissioner.
(3) The head
of the region or the Commissioner, as the case may be, shall give the
offender a copy of the head of the region's or Commissioner's decision,
including the reasons for the decision, as soon as practicable after the
offender submits an appeal.
81. (1) Where
an offender decides to pursue a legal remedy for the offender's complaint or
grievance in addition to the complaint and grievance procedure referred to in
these Regulations, the review of the complaint or grievance pursuant to these
Regulations shall be deferred until a decision on the alternate remedy is
rendered or the offender decides to abandon the alternate remedy.
(2) Where the
review of a complaint or grievance is deferred pursuant to subsection (1),
the person who is reviewing the complaint or grievance shall give the
offender written notice of the decision to defer the review.
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;
(b) any
recommendations made by an inmate grievance committee or outside review
board; and
(c) any
decision made respecting an alternate remedy referred to in subsection 81(1).
|
74.
(1) Lorsqu'il est insatisfait d'une action ou d'une décision de l'agent, le
délinquant peut présenter une plainte au supérieur de cet agent, par écrit et
de préférence sur une formule fournie par le Service.
(2)
Les agents et le délinquant qui a présenté une plainte conformément au
paragraphe (1) doivent prendre toutes les mesures utiles pour régler la
question de façon informelle.
(3)
Sous réserve des paragraphes (4) et (5), le supérieur doit examiner la
plainte et fournir copie de sa décision au délinquant aussitôt que possible
après que celui-ci a présenté sa plainte.
(4)
Le supérieur peut refuser d'examiner une plainte présentée conformément au
paragraphe (1) si, à son avis, la plainte est futile ou vexatoire ou n'est
pas faite de bonne foi.
(5)
Lorsque, conformément au paragraphe (4), le supérieur refuse d'examiner une
plainte, il doit fournir au délinquant une copie de sa décision motivée
aussitôt que possible après que celui-ci a présenté sa plainte.
75.
Lorsque, conformément au paragraphe 74(4), le supérieur refuse d'examiner la
plainte ou que la décision visée au paragraphe 74(3) ne satisfait pas le
délinquant, celui-ci peut présenter un grief, par écrit et de préférence sur
une formule fournie par le Service :
a)
soit au directeur du pénitencier ou au directeur de district des libérations
conditionnelles, selon le cas;
b)
soit, si c'est le directeur du pénitencier ou le directeur de district des
libérations conditionnelles qui est mis en cause, au responsable de la
région.
76.
(1) Le directeur du pénitencier, le directeur de district des libérations
conditionnelles ou le responsable de la région, selon le cas, doit examiner
le grief afin de déterminer s'il relève de la compétence du Service.
(2)
Lorsque le grief porte sur un sujet qui ne relève pas de la compétence du
Service, la personne qui a examiné le grief conformément au paragraphe (1)
doit en informer le délinquant par écrit et lui indiquer les autres recours
possibles.
77.
(1) Dans le cas d'un grief présenté par le détenu, lorsqu'il existe un comité
d'examen des griefs des détenus dans le pénitencier, le directeur du
pénitencier peut transmettre le grief à ce comité.
(2)
Le comité d'examen des griefs des détenus doit présenter au directeur ses
recommandations au sujet du grief du détenu aussitôt que possible après en
avoir été saisi.
(3)
Le directeur du pénitencier doit remettre au détenu une copie de sa décision
aussitôt que possible après avoir reçu les recommandations du comité d'examen
des griefs des détenus.
78.
La personne qui examine un grief selon l'article 75 doit remettre copie de sa
décision au délinquant aussitôt que possible après que le détenu a présenté
le grief.
79.
(1) Lorsque le directeur du pénitencier rend une décision concernant le grief
du détenu, celui-ci peut demander que le directeur transmette son grief à un
comité externe d'examen des griefs, et le directeur doit accéder à cette
demande.
(2)
Le comité externe d'examen des griefs doit présenter au directeur du
pénitencier ses recommandations au sujet du grief du détenu aussitôt que
possible après en avoir été saisi.
(3)
Le directeur du pénitencier doit remettre au détenu une copie de sa décision
aussitôt que possible après avoir reçu les recommandations du comité externe
d'examen des griefs.
80.
(1) Lorsque le délinquant est insatisfait de la décision rendue au sujet de
son grief par le directeur du pénitencier ou par le directeur de district des
libérations conditionnelles, il peut en appeler au responsable de la région.
(2)
Lorsque le délinquant est insatisfait de la décision rendue au sujet de son
grief par le responsable de la région, il peut en appeler au commissaire.
(3)
Le responsable de la région ou le commissaire, selon le cas, doit transmettre
au délinquant copie de sa décision motivée aussitôt que possible après que le
délinquant a interjeté appel.
81.
(1) Lorsque le délinquant décide de prendre un recours judiciaire concernant
sa plainte ou son grief, en plus de présenter une plainte ou un grief selon
la procédure prévue dans le présent règlement, l'examen de la plainte ou du
grief conformément au présent règlement est suspendu jusqu'à ce qu'une
décision ait été rendue dans le recours judiciaire ou que le détenu s'en
désiste.
(2)
Lorsque l'examen de la plainte ou au grief est suspendu conformément au
paragraphe (1), la personne chargée de cet examen doit en informer le
délinquant par écrit.
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;
b)
des recommandations faites par le comité d'examen des griefs des détenus et
par le comité externe d'examen des griefs;
c)
de toute décision rendue dans le recours judiciaire visé au paragraphe 81(1).
|
Email this Content