Date: 20120417
Dockets:
A-306-11
A-234-11
Citation:
2012 FCA 116
CORAM: NOËL J.A.
TRUDEL
J.A.
MAINVILLE
J.A.
A-306-11
BETWEEN:
ALBERT GAUDREAU
Appellant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
A-234-11
BETWEEN:
STEVE HURDLE
Appellant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on April 17, 2012.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on April 17, 2012.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NOËL
J.A.
Date: 20120417
Dockets:
A-306-11
A-234-11
Citation:
2012 FCA 116
CORAM: NOËL J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
MAINVILLE J.A.
A-306-11
BETWEEN:
ALBERT GAUDREAU
Appellant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
A-234-11
BETWEEN:
STEVE HURDLE
Appellant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on April 17, 2012)
NOËL J.A.
[1]
These are two appeals
filed by Albert Gaudreau and Steve Hurdle (collectively, the appellants)
against two decisions of the Federal Court, in which justices Bédard and Scott
(the Federal Court judges) dismissed the appellants’ applications for judicial
review of the conditions for long-term supervision imposed by the National
Parole Board of Canada (the Board) under section 134.1 of the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20 (the Act).
[2]
The appellants are
represented by the same counsel, and the appeals were heard one after the other
at the same hearing. These reasons deal with both appeals.
[3]
In support of their
appeals, the appellants advanced the same argument based on the duration of the
conditions imposed on them. In their opinion, the conditions do not respect the
requirements of subsection 134.1(3) of the Act since the Board failed to
consider the duration of the conditions it imposed.
[4]
The appellants also
submit that the reasons for the Board’s decisions were inadequate, and further
raise certain arguments specific to their case.
[5]
The decisions under
appeal reject all of the preceding arguments, and we believe that these
arguments should suffer the same fate under appeal essentially for the same
reasons as provided by the Federal Court.
[6]
The only issue that
deserves further examination is the scope of subsection 134.1(3) of the
Act. This provision obliges the Board to address the duration of conditions
since, according to the provision’s very wording, the conditions imposed by the
Board are “valid for the period that the Board specifies”. These words indicate,
without any possible doubt, that the Board must consider the period of
application of the conditions it imposes and determine the duration of that
period. It should be noted that this is the appropriate conclusion to be drawn,
regardless of the standard of review chosen to examine this aspect of the
Board’s decision. In other words, this interpretation is the correct one since
an interpretation that would allow the Board to impose conditions without
respecting this requirement would be unreasonable.
[7]
The main argument made
by counsel for the appellants to demonstrate that the Board failed in this duty
is based on the pre-printed standard clause that appears on the decision sheet
(NPB Post Release Decision Sheet) indicating that the imposed conditions:
[a]pply
until the end of the release unless a fixed period of time is specified.
[8]
According to counsel
for the appellants, the very existence of this clause suggests that the Board
imposed the conditions of long-term supervision without considering the
duration for which these conditions should apply.
[9]
The existence of such a
clause clearly presents some dangers. It is not enough to insert a pre-printed
standard clause in the decision template to demonstrate that the Board truly
considered the duration of the conditions it imposed, as required by the Act.
[10]
The appellants’
argument could have carried some weight had it not been for the fact that, in
both cases before us, one of the conditions imposed by the Board was subject to
a shorter period than that stipulated in the standard clause. In these
circumstances, it can only be concluded that the Board considered the duration
and decided to apply the duration specified in the standard clause except in
the case of these two exceptions. In our view, the Board’s reasons, read as a
whole, lead to the conclusion that the Board considered the duration of the
conditions it imposed in both cases before us as it was required to do.
[11]
The appeals will
therefore be dismissed. Considering the seriousness of the question of law
raised by the appellants and the clarification that emerges from the present
reasons as to the Board’s duty to consider the duration of the special
conditions it sets under subsection 134.1(3) of the Act, there is no basis
for ordering the appellants to pay the costs related to the appeals.
“Marc Noël”
Certified true translation
Johanna Kratz, Translator
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-306-11
APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE
JUSTICE BÉDARD OF THE FEDERAL COURT DATED JULY 28, 2011, DOCKET T-2108-10.
STYLE OF CAUSE: Albert
Gaudreau and Attorney General of Canada
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: April
17, 2012
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: Noël,
Trudel and Mainville JJ.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Noël
J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
Maxime Hébert-Lafontaine/
Nadia Golmier
|
FOR THE APPELLANT
|
|
Toni Abi Nasr
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Labelle, Boudrault, Côté & Associés
Montréal, Quebec
|
FOR THE
APPELLANT
|
|
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE
RESPONDENT
|
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-234-11
APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE
JUSTICE SCOTT OF THE FEDERAL COURT DATED MAY 20, 2011, DOCKET T-1604-10.
STYLE OF CAUSE: Steve
Hurdle and Attorney General of Canada
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: April
17, 2012
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: Noël,
Trudel and Mainville JJ.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Noël
J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
Maxime Hébert
Lafontaine
|
FOR THE APPELLANT
|
|
Nicholas R.
Banks
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Labelle, Boudrault,
Côté & Associés
Montréal, Quebec
|
FOR THE
APPELLANT
|
|
Myles J.
Kirvan
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE
RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content