Docket: T-534-14
Citation:
2015 FC 2
Ottawa, Ontario, January 6, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
DEREK ANTHONY WOOD
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Overview
[1]
Mr Derek Anthony Wood is serving a life sentence
at the Atlantic Institution in New Brunswick. He challenges a decision of the
Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) denying his request to amend his
Correctional Plan Update (CPU). Mr Wood alleges that the CPU contains
significant errors that render it biased and unreasonable. He asks me to quash
the CSC’s decision and order that the CPU be corrected.
[2]
I cannot conclude that the CSC committed any
reviewable errors. The CPU was prepared in accordance with a fair process in
which Mr Wood was consulted and interviewed. I see no evidence of bias.
Further, the CSC’s decision was not unreasonable as it was based on the
evidence before it. Therefore, I must dismiss this application for judicial
review.
[3]
There are three issues:
1.
Has Mr Wood’s case already been decided by the
Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick?
2.
Did the CSC treat Mr Wood unfairly?
3.
Was the CSC’s decision unreasonable?
II.
The CSC’s Decision
[4]
The CSC’s decision was prepared by the Acting
Senior Deputy Commissioner in response to Mr Wood’s third-level grievance. The
CSC noted Mr Wood’s dispute about the accuracy of his CPU and cited the
procedures that should normally be followed when an inmate disputes information
in his or her file (Corrections and Conditional Release Act, SC 1992, c
20, s 24 [CCRA]. See Annex for enactments cited). Under the CCRA, an offender
can request a correction, and if the CSC refuses to make it, the CSC must make
a note to file recording the objection.
[5]
However, Mr Wood insisted he was not simply
asking for a chance to add a note to his file recording his objections – he
actually wanted his file to be amended. However, the CSC decided it was bound
by the process set out in the CCRA, and dismissed this ground of Mr Wood’s
grievance.
[6]
Regarding the process by which the CPU was
prepared, the CSC noted Mr Wood’s concern that he had been inadequately
consulted. In particular, his parole officer allegedly cut him off and never
completed the interview. However, the officer maintained that the interview was
complete and no follow-up was required. Accordingly, the CSC also dismissed
this ground of complaint.
[7]
Finally, the CSC addressed Mr Wood’s submission
that he should be considered to be a low risk for recidivism. The decision
reviewed the various factors that are taken into account in arriving at a risk
assessment and found that a sufficient rationale had been provided for the
conclusion that Mr Wood presented more than a low risk. This conclusion was
based on a number of criteria, including his potential for reintegration, his
motivation to change, his willingness to be accountable for his conduct, and
his behaviour while incarcerated. Again, the CSC noted the procedure for
seeking a correction if Mr Wood wished to amend the information in his file.
The CSC also dismissed this ground of Mr Wood’s grievance.
III.
Issue One – Has Mr Wood’s case already been decided by the Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick?
[8]
The Attorney General of Canada argues that Mr
Wood’s case was already decided by the Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick (Wood
v Canada (Atlantic Institution), 2014 NBQB 135) and, therefore, should not
be decided again in this Court.
[9]
I disagree.
[10]
In the Queen’s Bench, Mr Wood challenged his
maximum security classification on an application for habeas corpus.
Justice John Walsh concluded that a decision confirming Mr Wood’s maximum
security classification was not reviewable by way of habeas corpus
because that decision would not amount to limitation on his residual liberty.
In arriving at that conclusion, Justice Walsh considered the basis on which,
and the process according to which, Mr Wood had been assigned to a maximum
security institution.
[11]
That is not the case before me. Here, Mr Wood is
challenging a decision relating to the contents of his CPU, not his security
classification. While some of the evidence is relevant to both issues, that
does not mean that the issues are the same. The issue before me was not decided
by Justice Walsh.
IV.
Issue Two – Did the CSC treat Mr Wood unfairly?
[12]
Mr Wood argues that he should have been given a
chance to review the CPU before it was finalized in order to point out errors
in it. His lack of input, he says, resulted in a biased report.
[13]
I disagree.
[14]
Fairness required that Mr Wood be given a chance
to provide input during the process leading to the preparation of the CPU. The
CCRA so stipulates (s 15.1(2)). The evidence shows that Mr Wood was consulted,
although he says that he should have been granted a follow-up interview. He
does not say what more he would have said.
[15]
Fairness did not require that Mr Wood be given
an opportunity to review a draft of the CPU before it was finalized. Mr Wood
had a chance to make submissions and did so. There is no evidence that the
resulting report was biased or prepared in bad faith. He was not treated
unfairly.
V.
Issue Three – Was the CSC’s decision unreasonable?
[16]
Mr Wood argues that the opinions contained in
the CPU were unreasonable because relevant evidence was not considered. In
turn, with respect to his third-level grievance, he says that the CSC
overlooked the same information, which made its decision unreasonable, too. Mr.
Wood points out that the CSC has a duty to maintain accurate, complete, and
current records relating to inmates, which the CSC failed to do here (s 24). In
particular, the CSC failed to take account of reports in which Mr Wood had been
found to have accepted responsibility for his conduct.
[17]
I see no basis for concluding that the CSC’s
decision was unreasonable.
[18]
While it appears to me that the CSC considered
the relevant evidence relating to Mr Wood’s risk assessment, the appropriate
course of action for Mr Wood to take, if he disagreed, was to request a file
correction under s 24 of the CCRA. Mr Wood rightly points out that the contents
of a correctional plan can be the subject of a grievance, but the CCRA contains
a specific mechanism for dealing with concerns about accuracy (as opposed to
fairness, for example). Therefore, I cannot conclude that the CSC’s decision on
that point was unreasonable.
[19]
The reports in which Mr Wood allegedly took
responsibility for his crimes note that he was “open to
talk about his offence a few times”, took “responsibility
for his actions but is still at the early sages of understanding his criminal
behaviour and self-questioning”, and was able to describe his offences
but “had a much more difficult time attaching thoughts
and feelings to the events and attempting to determine how his past
experiences, circumstances at the time, and personality characteristics
contributed to the poor choices he made that morning, which ultimately
culminated in his offending behaviour”.
[20]
The CPU noted that over two years Mr Wood
had been “very reluctant to talk about his past”. Mr
Wood argues that the statement is unsupportable in light of the evidence in the
preceding paragraph. In my view, however, looking at the reports as a whole, I
cannot conclude that the CSC’s conclusion that Mr Wood had failed over the
years to take accountability for his offence was unreasonable.
[21]
Similarly, the CSC’s finding
that Mr Wood should have requested a corrective note to file was not
unreasonable. Mr Wood identified numerous areas where he disagrees with the
opinions contained in his CPU. For example, he says his attitude should be
scored “low” for need of improvement, not “high” as the CPU suggests. He makes
similar submissions regarding other factors considered - Associates;
Personal/Emotional; Accountability; etc. But these consist of assessments made
by professional corrections personnel. Again, I believe the appropriate course
would be for Mr Wood to bring forward his own opinions about those factors and
ask for his file to be amended accordingly. If the CSC disagreed, at least his
opinions would be included in his file. On the evidence, I cannot find that the
CSC’s conclusion that a sufficient rationale had been provided in the CPU in
each of the areas of analysis was unreasonable.
[22]
Accordingly, based on the record before it, I
cannot conclude that the CSC’s decision was unreasonable.
VI.
Conclusion and Disposition
[23]
Mr Wood’s case was not decided previously by the
Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick. However, I am not satisfied that the CSC
treated him unfairly. Further, based on the evidence and the law, the CSC’s
decision not to amend Mr Wood’s CPU represented a defensible outcome. It was
not unreasonable. I must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial
review.
Email this Content