Date: 20010530
Docket: A-712-99
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
ERNEST CARON
Appellant
- AND -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Hearing held at Québec, Quebec on Tuesday, May 29, 2001.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Date: 20010530
Docket A-712-99
Neutral reference: 2001 FCA 173
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
ERNEST CARON
Appellant
- AND -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
[1] The appellant is asking the Court to reverse the decision of Nadon J. dismissing the action for damages which he brought against the respondent for unlawful detention. For the following reasons, he did not persuade the Court that it should intervene in the case at bar.
[2] I consider that the trial judge was right to conclude that the appellant was unable to show negligence by the respondent's employees, which according to the appellant's allegations resulted from the decision of the penitentiary authorities to place him in administrative segregation for his refusal to participate in the compulsory reintegration programs developed by the Correctional Service of Canada and introduced at the Donnaconna penitentiary, where the appellant is imprisoned.
[3] It should be noted that these programs were fundamental to a new correctional strategy which was intended to be a logical extension of unit management and that the Donnaconna penitentiary was selected as the first institution where the strategy would be applied.
[4] Further, under s. 40 (1)(a) of the Penitentiary Service Regulations, C.R.C., c. 1251, as amended, the institutional head has the power to order the dissociation of an inmate to ensure the maintenance of good order and discipline in the institution:
Dissociation
40. (1) Where the institutional head is satisfied that
(a) for the maintenance of good order and discipline in the institution, or
(b) in the best interests of an inmate
Interdiction de se joindre aux autres
40. (1) Si le chef de l'institution est convaincu que,
a) pour le maintien du bon ordre et de la discipline dans l'institution, ou
b) dans le meilleur intérêt du détenu,
it is necessary or desirable that the inmate should be kept from associating with other inmates, he may order the inmate to be dissociated accordingly, but the case of every inmate so dissociated shall be considered, not less than once each month, by the Classification Board for the purpose of recommending to the institutional head whether or not the inmate should return to association with other inmates.
il est nécessaire ou opportun d'interdire au détenu de se joindre aux autres, il peut le lui interdire, mais le cas d'un détenu ainsi placé à l'écart doit être étudié, au moins
une fois par mois, par le Comité de classement qui recommandera au chef de l'institution la levée ou le maintien de cette interdiction.
[5] In this regard, the trial judge was not wrong to conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the institutional head to be satisfied that it was necessary or desirable to order that the appellant be dissociated.
[6] In fact, by his persistent and repeated refusal even to participate in the development of a correctional plan involving him which could inform him about the opportunities for his rehabilitation, the appellant systematically opposed the efforts of the prison authorities to introduce reintegration programs designed to assist inmates in reintegrating into society: appeal book, vol. I, p. 131. As John Rose, unit manager at the Donnaconna institution, said in his testimony, the prison authorities feared the exemplary or domino effect which the appellant's refusal to participate in the programs, and hence in his rehabilitation, might have on other inmates subject to these compulsory programs, and consequently on the administration of the penitentiary: appeal book, vol. II, p. 199.
[7] The appellant's failure to co-operate even went so far as to refuse, despite repeated requests, to meet with the persons responsible for implementing these programs. While in administrative segregation, the appellant also refused to re-enter the general population in section 119 (Pavilion T) as he was ordered to do and preferred to remain in administrative segregation: appeal book, vol. I, p. 131. In this connection, the grievance committee wrote:
As for your grievance is concerned (sic), you state that any treatment should and must be on a voluntary basis. We are in agreement with you on this fact and our policy has been modified.
However you do not seem to understand that the Correctional treatment Plan is not a therapy, but a resume of your needs along with the measures that you must undertake in order to allow you to progress and eventualy return to society as a productive citizen. It is your choice either to profit from the plan we traced for you or to refuse and remain the same person as when you were admitted.
In order for us to offer this choice it is necessary for you to meet with your case management team especially the correctional officer responsible for you.
It is this step which you refused, and has resulted in our decision to transfer you to a pavilion in which the program is designed for people who wish little or no contact with the staff. You refused to integrate the pavilion and prefered to remain in segregation.
[8] In short, the appellant held the key to ending his administrative segregation and preferred not to use it. In so doing, he was the architect of his own misfortune and his own disappointment. The detention of the appellant in administrative segregation was reviewed on six occasions in accordance with the Act and continued. If this detention is due to anyone's fault, in my opinion it is that of the appellant and not of the respondent's employees.
[9] I would dismiss the appeal, but without costs since the respondent has not requested them.
I concur in these reasons
Alice Desjardins J.A.
I concur
Marc Noël J.A.
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 20010530
Docket: A-712-99
Between:
ERNEST CARON
Appellant
- AND -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FEDERAL COURT APPEAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE No.: A-712-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: ERNEST CARON
Appellant
- AND -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Québec, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: May 29, 2001
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT BY: Létourneau J.A.
DATED: May 30, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Ernest Caron (himself) for the appellant
Louis Sébastien for the respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
1538 Route 138 for the appellant
Donnaconna, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg for the respondent
Deputy Attorney
General of Canada
Email this Content