Wright v. Canada (Attorney General), 2001 FCA 218

Date: 20010626

Docket: A-537-00

Citation: 2001 FCA 218

Vancouver, British Columbia, Tuesday, the 26^th day of June, 2001

CORAM:        ROTHSTEIN, J.A.

SEXTON, J.A.

EVANS, J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                                               BLAKE WRIGHT

                                                                                                                                            Appellant

                                                                         - and -

                                             ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

                                                                                                                                        Respondent

                                                    REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered orally from the Bench at Vancouver on Tuesday, June 26, 2001)

EVANS J.A.

[1]                This is an appeal from a decision of a Judge of the Trial Division granting the respondent's motion to strike the appellant's application for judicial review of the administration by Correctional Services of Canada ("CSC") and the National Parole Board ("the Board") of the appellant's sentence. Despite the able arguments of counsel for the appellant, we are not satisfied that, in granting the motion, the Motions Judge made any error in the exercise of his discretion that warrants the intervention of this Court.

[2]                We accept that the Court's supervisory jurisdiction over federal boards, commissions or other tribunals conferred by section 18.1 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, is not limited to decisions or orders of those agencies. However, counsel was unable to identify any particular administrative action by either the CSC or the Board that he was prepared to say was unlawful. This may have been because the appellant was out of time for challenging any of the administrative decisions to which we were referred.

[3]                Counsel's principal argument was that, in refusing Mr. Wright's requests since 1993 to be transferred to a minimum security institution, CSC had failed to consider all the relevant circumstances, and instead had based its decisions on the Board's refusal to grant his requests for escorted temporary absences ("ETA"). Conversely, counsel argued, the Board had refused Mr. Wright's requests for ETAs because CSC did not regard him as an appropriate candidate for minimum security confinement. Mr. Wright was thus stuck in a logjam from which he could not extricate himself. His incarceration was thereby in violation of his right under section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freeedoms not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.

[4]                We do not read the record in this way. In our opinion, it is quite clear that the various officials and agencies responsible for administering Mr. Wright's sentence have considered his requests on their merits on many occasions. That some officials have at some times recommended granting some of his requests does not establish that there was anything unlawful in the decisions to refuse the requests.

[5]                For these reasons, we agree with the Motions Judge's conclusion that the appellant's application for judicial review is bereft of any prospect of success. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.

(Sgd.) "John M. Evans"

                   J.A.

Vancouver, British Columbia

June 26, 2001