Date: 20071016
Docket: T-2284-06
Citation: 2007 FC 1058
Ottawa, Ontario, October 16,
2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
BETWEEN:
KENNETH ADAM GATES,
JOHN JAMES ST. JEAN,
RICHARD ARLISS FOX,
NEIL ROBERT SIMPSON AND
SHELDON
KENNETH SHALER
Applicants
and
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
[1]
Justice
Blanchard had issued an interlocutory injunction prohibiting Correctional
Service Canada (CSC) from allowing the temperature at the Temporary Detention
Unit (TDU) at Matsqui Institution to drop below 20 degrees Celsius between the
hours of 08:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight and 16 degrees Celsius between the hours
of 12:00 midnight and 08:00 a.m. pending the final disposition of this
application for judicial review. This is the judicial review which underlies
Justice Blanchard’s decision in which he found the serious issue to be whether
the Applicants were required to use the internal complaint procedure before
applying to this Court for relief.
II. FACTUAL
BACKGROUND
[2]
The
TDU is a holding area in the Matsqui Institution which holds parolees who have
been returned to custody as a result of parole violations. Typically, inmates
in the TDU spend a short period of time in the unit ranging from a few days to
a few weeks.
[3]
The
Applicants, with the exception of St. Jean, have been relocated to
other facilities and none are in the TDU. The Applicants attempted to suggest
that some of them might be transferred back to the TDU – an entirely
speculative assertion. The purpose of the argument is to suggest that the issue
in this case is not academic. Given the nature of TDU inmate holdings, the
principles in Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1
S.C.R. 342, would apply and the Respondent quite properly does not seek to
strike this judicial review on the grounds of mootness.
[4]
The
problem related to the TDU is systemic and could possibly apply to a number of
current and potential inmates. The problem is that because inmates smoke in
their cells, contrary to an unenforced policy of CSC, the unit has to be ventilated
to clear the smoke. Apparently, there are no fans to accomplish this task.
[5]
In
order to ventilate the TDU, the doors of the unit have to be opened. This, the
Applicants say, is done with such persistence and regularity that the unit
becomes unhealthily cold. As well, the inmates are denied extra blankets or
clothing to keep them warm during these periods – particularly in winter – when
the TDU becomes very cold. It is alleged that the rear doors of the unit are
kept open all day and sometimes all night – the suggestion is that this is done
for purposes of causing more discomfort than is necessary to rid the TDU of
smoke.
[6]
A
number of the Applicants suffer from illnesses (i.e. HIV/AIDS or Hepatitis C) which
makes them particularly sensitive to cold and where the cold aggravates their
illness.
[7]
The
Applicants submitted evidence from Environment Canada showing that between
December 2006 and mid-March 2007 temperatures could range from the low-teens
Celsius to as low as -12 degrees, although typically in the range of 0 degrees.
[8]
The
Applicants submitted their direct evidence which was not directly challenged.
This evidence included the allegation that they were denied permission to wear
outdoor clothing indoors, that additional clothing/blankets were denied and
that oral and written complaints were not acted upon.
[9]
The
Respondent’s evidence was from the Acting Correctional Supervisor of the TDU,
who addressed the real health need to ventilate the unit of smoke, the
difficulty created by inmates smoking indoors (there is no outdoor “no smoking”
policy yet) and that extra clothing and blankets were offered to inmates. The
affiant’s evidence consisted of substantial hearsay evidence without any
indication of the source of such evidence, including the absence of any
complaints from inmates.
[10]
Justice
Blanchard issued his order on substantially the same evidence regarding the
inmates’ complaints as was before this Court, particularly as the evidence
relates to the harm experienced by the Applicants and other inmates. Justice
Blanchard’s order was in effect during the winter of 2007 and there is no
evidence that it was not effective or overly burdensome to comply with.
[11]
There
was some suggestion put forward by the Respondent’s counsel that a new policy
imposing a complete smoking ban would be imposed by April 2008 which would
eliminate the need to ventilate the TDU. No direct evidence on this point was
put forward but I accept counsel’s word that such a ban may be forthcoming. The
future imposition of this ban only affects the scope of the remedy.
[12]
The
Respondent’s legal obligation to provide a safe and healthy environment for
inmates and staff are set forth in ss. 70, 86 and 87 of the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20 (CCRA). Section 70 reads:
|
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.
|
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.
|
[13]
It
is axiomatic that people need heat in winter – a concept not likely to be
challenged. The duty to provide a safe and healthy living environment includes
providing adequate heat.
[14]
The
obligation imposed on CSC to provide a healthy environment is set forth
particularly in s. 83 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations,
S.O.R./92-620 (Regulations):
|
83. (1) The Service shall, to ensure a
safe and healthful penitentiary environment, ensure that all applicable
federal health, safety, sanitation and fire laws are complied with in each
penitentiary and that every penitentiary is inspected regularly by the
persons responsible for enforcing those laws.
(2) The Service shall take all reasonable steps to ensure the
safety of every inmate and that every inmate is
(a) adequately clothed and fed;
(b) provided with adequate bedding;
(c) provided with toilet articles and all other articles
necessary for personal health and cleanliness; and
(d) given the opportunity to exercise for at least one
hour every day outdoors, weather permitting, or indoors where the weather
does not permit exercising outdoors.
|
83. (1) Pour assurer un milieu pénitentiaire sain et
sécuritaire, le Service doit veiller à ce que chaque pénitencier soit
conforme aux exigences des lois fédérales applicables en matière de santé, de
sécurité, d'hygiène et de prévention des incendies et qu'il soit inspecté
régulièrement par les responsables de l'application de ces lois.
(2) Le Service doit prendre toutes les mesures
utiles pour que la sécurité de chaque détenu soit garantie et que chaque
détenu :
a) soit
habillé et nourri convenablement;
b) reçoive
une literie convenable;
c) reçoive
des articles de toilette et tous autres objets nécessaires à la propreté et à
l'hygiène personnelles;
d) ait la
possibilité de faire au moins une heure d'exercice par jour, en plein air si
le temps le permet ou, dans le cas contraire, à l'intérieur.
|
[15]
When
disputes arise between the CSC and an inmate, the Regulations provide for a
complaints and grievance process in ss. 74-82 (attached as Annex A to these
Reasons). Particularly germane to this judicial review is s. 81 which
contemplates an inmate pursuing both the complaints and grievance process as
well as other legal remedies.
|
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.
|
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.
|
[16]
The
Applicants’ evidence is that at least one of them filed a written complaint, others
made oral complaints and yet others were told that the complaints process did
not apply to inmates in the TDU because they were considered members of the
outside community – presumably because they were parolees. In any event, no
action was taken on those complaints made until counsel became involved, late
in the process.
[17]
The
Applicants contend that the CSC violated the CCRA and Regulations, violated
their s. 7 and s. 12 Charter rights and violated the Canadian Human
Rights Act (CHRA). The Respondent, aside from denying any violation and/or
jurisdiction in this Court to consider the rights issues under the Charter
and CHRA, says that this Court should decline jurisdiction to hear this matter
because of the existence of a grievance procedure.
III. ANALYSIS
[18]
The
principal issue is whether the Court should decline to hear this matter because
the Applicants did not utilize the internal complaints process. This is an
issue of law which concerns this Court’s jurisdiction and an interpretation of
the legislation. As such, the standard of review is correctness.
[19]
Although
standard of review was not a particular focus of this judicial review, to the
extent that the Court must consider the actions and decisions of the CSC
officials in respect of the matter of ventilating the TDU, the standard of
review is reasonableness. The Regulations, in s. 81, contemplate alternative
remedies other than the complaint process, which suggests low deference. The
specifics of when and how to maintain healthy conditions engages the expertise
of CSC officials and therefore suggests greater deference. However, the
particular issue, the temperature and availability of clothes and blankets, is
largely a rights-based dispute and suggests less deference. Finally, the
dispute is one of mixed law and fact which again suggests reasonableness. All
of these factors taken together lead to the conclusion that, in these
circumstances, the standard of review is reasonableness.
A. Violation
of CCRA – Complaints Process
[20]
On
the substantive matter of whether there was a breach of the obligation to
provide a healthy environment – particularly that of heat in winter - the
evidence is contradictory. The Court is mindful of the incentives and motives
of persons in the position of the Applicants to make fanciful allegations. However,
the allegations have a sufficient “ring of truth” that they must be assessed on
the basis of the evidence in respect of each allegation.
[21]
The
allegations are that the rear doors of the TDU were left open, that the cells
became cold and that blankets and outdoor clothing were not made available or
permitted. These allegations are supported by affidavit of first-hand
witnesses.
[22]
The
difficulty with the Respondent’s contrary evidence is that it is so remote that
it does not substantially rebut the Applicants’ case. There was no evidence
from persons who were present, e.g. guards, to counter the Applicants’
evidence.
[23]
Justice
Blanchard accepted that the harm claimed by the Applicants occurred and I see
no reason to depart from that finding particularly where the record on this
aspect is largely the same.
[24]
Having
concluded that the Applicants had at least a ground of complaint, the issue is
whether this matter should be dealt with by this Court in light of the existence
of a comprehensive grievance procedure mandated by the Regulations.
[25]
Justice
Pelletier, while on the Trial Division, in Marachelian v. Canada (Attorney
General) (T.D.), [2001] 1 F.C. 17, had to deal with a similar issue. The
learned judge recognized that there had to be exceptions to the general rule
that an inmate had to exhaust internal remedies before seeking Court relief.
[26]
In
my view, the Court should not lightly interfere with the complaints process.
There are strong policy and statutory reasons for requiring inmates to use this
process. It is in cases of compelling circumstances, such as where there is actual
physical or mental harm or clear inadequacy of the process that a departure
from the complaints process would be justified (this is not an exhaustive list
of the circumstances justifying departure from the usual process).
[27]
As
recognized in May v. Ferndale Institution, [2005] 3
S.C.R. 809, the complaints process is not a complete statutory code. While not
dealing with freedom issues, as in Ferndale, the Court is faced
with health issues which are serious matters. In addition, the factual
background as to cold temperatures in the TDU is not substantially challenged
which gives credence to the health concerns brought on by cold temperatures.
[28]
As
outlined earlier in these Reasons, s. 81 specifically contemplated an inmate
seeking alternative legal remedies to those internal remedies. It is consistent
with this regulatory scheme that, where there are urgent substantive matters
and evident inadequacy in the internal procedures, it is open to the Court to
consider the issue of remedial action.
[29]
Because
there are potential health issues and that the problems are seasonal, there is
a need to resolve these complaints quickly. The prison complaint process has
been criticized as slow and inadequate – see the Annual Report of the Office
of the Correctional Investigator 2005-2006 and the Report of the Commission
of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston by the
Honourable Louise Arbour.
[30]
While
there is a process for “prompt” action on complaints to shorten the usual
grievance process of 6-12 months, the process is uncertain and depends to some
extent on how the complaint is classified by CSC. This particular complaint is
classified by the Respondent as one related to temperature and therefore not of
great priority. The Applicants classify it is one of health deserving of
greater priority.
[31]
In
submissions, not rebutted, the Applicants contend that priority complaints can
take up to six months to resolve and, at a minimum, 12 weeks to process.
Persons held in the TDU, such as the Applicants, are held there for less than
this minimum time, making the complaint process for any such complainant
academic. The Respondent has not shown that the complaint process is adequate
in these circumstances.
[32]
Any
alternative remedy must be timely and effective. There is no evidence that in
respect to this complaint, or even complaints of a similar type, the process
meets either criterion.
[33]
Lastly,
there is no assurance that complaints will be acted upon. There is evidence
that these complaints were not. Four of the five Applicants claim that they
complained – sometimes orally, sometimes in writing. Recognizing the frailties
inherent in this type of allegation, the Respondent has presented no evidence
that directly challenges these events or even the plausibility that these
complaints were made. There is no evidence of a mechanism that assures that
complaints reach the responsible person.
[34]
The
Court is left in the position, if the Respondent’s submissions are accepted, of
rejecting sworn evidence, not challenged or rebutted with plausible contrary
evidence. One could ask rhetorically – on what basis would the Court reject
this sworn evidence other than its sense that such allegations are easy to make
and that there is motive to do so?
[35]
In
my view, this is a thin basis for rejecting evidence. The Applicants are no
longer in the TDU and gain nothing from pursuing their complaint. If they are
successful, the most that is achieved is a continuance of Justice Blanchard’s
order that other inmates in the TDU receive heat in winter - hardly a motive
for perjury.
[36]
In
all these circumstances, I find that this is a proper case for departing from
the requirement to follow the complaint process. I further find that based on a
balance of probabilities, the Applicants’ complaint is made out and that the
Respondent failed to meet its statutory obligations and did not behave
reasonably.
[37]
Given
that Justice Blanchard’s interim order was effective, it should be continued
with minor adjustment. The Respondent rightly is concerned that even a minor
deviation from the temperature settings could be a breach of a court order.
Therefore, a materiality provision will be inserted in the final order.
[38]
In
the event that the Commissioner imposes a policy which eliminates the need to
ventilate the TDU or there are other substantial changes of circumstance, the
Respondent may apply to vacate this Order.
B. Charter
[39]
Given
the result in this case, it is not necessary to decide the Charter
aspect of this judicial review. This is not a case where the Charter
issue had to be raised first with the Commissioner; however, this is a case
which can be decided without deciding a constitutional matter. The established
jurisprudence is that in such instances, a court should decline to pronounce on
Charter rights. (Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the
Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3)
C. Canadian
Human Rights Act
[40]
The
Applicants would have this Court make a finding that there is a breach of rights
under the CHRA without that matter proceeding to the Canadian Human Rights
Commission. Even if the Court has jurisdiction, I would decline to exercise it
because the Applicants can complain to the Commission and because this Court has
granted relief which addresses the core of the Applicants’ complaint.
IV. CONCLUSION
[41]
The
Applicants’ judicial review for a declaration and mandatory injunction will be
granted upon terms contained in the Judgment. The Applicants shall have their
costs as per the Judgment.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1. The
Respondent, through Correctional Service Canada, has failed to meet the
requirements of s. 86(1)(a) and 87(a) of the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act and s. 83 of the Corrections and Conditional Release
Regulations from approximately December 8, 2006 until the order of Justice
Blanchard dated February 2, 2007.
2. Until
this Order is varied or rescinded, Correctional Service Canada is prohibited
from allowing the temperature at the Temporary Detention Unit at Matsqui
Institution in Abbotsford, British Columbia, to drop, materially or for any
significant period of time, below 20 degrees Celsius between the hours of 08:00
a.m. and 12:00 midnight and 16 degrees Celsius between the hours of 12:00
midnight and 08:00 a.m.
3. The
Applicants shall have their costs in accordance with Column V of the Federal
Court Tariff.
“Michael
L. Phelan”
ANNEX A
Corrections and Conditional Release
Regulations,
S.O.R./92-620
|
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