PAROLE |
Zarzour v. Canada
A-399-99
Létourneau J.A.
18/12/00
35 pp.
Appeal and cross-appeal from Trial Division decision ((1999), 174 F.T.R. 162) ordering appellant to delete from respondent's files and some files in possession of National Parole Board and Correctional Service of Canada two letters his former wife, France Bélanger, had sent to Board in 1994--Respondent has since 1977 been serving sentence of life imprisonment for second degree murder offence--Alleging Ms. Bélanger's two letters were source of his difficulties with Board and Service, respondent brought action against respondent--Trial Judge erred in regard to applicable principle in such situations--Two letters sent to Board by Ms. Bélanger contain, in accordance with language of Privacy Act, s. 3, personal information about respondent--Letters, in so far as evoked possibility of violence and fear for security of their author and of members of her family, constituted relevant information that Board had to take into account, as needed, in performance of mandate--Board's role to investigate appropriateness of releasing individual who has been given prison term and to ensure that in so doing it does not compromise primary objective, of ensuring protection of society--Privacy Act, s. 6(3) obliging a federal institution to dispose of personal information only in accordance with system established by regulations, directives or guidelines--Trial Judge could not order France Bélanger's letters be deleted from respondent's file, still less destroyed or completely eliminated as verb "deleted" [extirper] suggests, both literally and figuratively--Board must act in accordance with principles of fairness--In assessing risk to society, Board, while not subject to rigidity of rules of evidence applicable to courts, has duty to examine all available reliable information--In so far as wishes to use relevant information, must satisfy itself of its accuracy and its persuasive value, or will fail in its duty to act fairly--Information coming from Ms. Bélanger was relevant and Board rightly filed it in respondent's record--It could ignore it if it was not reliable, but if it wished to use it, it had a duty to verify its accuracy and persuasive value--Board did not use Ms. Bélanger's letters in its decision of February 1994 revoking respondent's parole, nor did it do so during its hearings of January 17, 1996--Refusal to grant requested paroles attributable to respondent's high risk of recidivism and emotional instability--At hearing of April 17, 1997, Ms. Bélanger's request considered in part by Board and as consequence respondent's pre-release absence subject to condition he not contact her--Trial Judge right to conclude, from fact that such condition had been imposed, that Board had used Ms. Bélanger's letters--Board checked sufficiently reliability of Ms. Bélanger's allegations and gauged their persuasive value--In view of Parliament's intention in enacting Act, s. 144, Board cannot be criticized for adopting liberal approach it took in relation to Ms. Bélanger's request for access in refusing to impose unnecessary and sterile formalities--Neither Board nor Service conveyed to Ms. Bélanger information to which not entitled--Respondent's constitutional rights not infringed--In regard to compensatory damages, conveyance of information to Ms. Bélanger no consequence to respondent--Suffered no material damage and provided no evidence of any such damage--At most he suffered minimal non-economic loss and an amount of $2,000 would constitute an appropriate and just compensation--Absent any evidence of existence of principal/agent relationship between appellant and Ms. Bélanger in relation to alleged delict, appellant cannot be held liable for actions taken by her--Appeal allowed--Privacy Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-21, ss. 3, 6--Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, s. 144.