[2011] 4 F.C.R. D-7
Penitentiaries
Judicial review of decision of senior deputy commissioner of Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) denying applicant’s third-level grievance regarding warden’s refusal to approve applicant’s nomination for position on inmate committee at institution where applicant serving life sentence—Applicant claiming not provided opportunity to make representations regarding prohibition on participation in Inmate Committee, as required by Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, s. 77, Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620, s. 99(2)(b)—Neither second-, third-level grievance decision addressing applicant’s submissions regarding flaws in process followed by warden—Although applicant evidently familiar with rules, regulations governing inmates’ rights, not relieving CSC of obligations under law—Regulations, s. 99(2)(b) not only requiring that inmates be permitted to make representations regarding decisions affecting them, Act, s. 27(1) giving offender additional right to receive information prior to decision being taken—Therefore, CSC’s failure to follow procedure prescribed by law in present case violating applicant’s right to be treated fairly—Warden’s decision herein unreasonable—Relied on 2006 psychological report referring to applicant’s “thinking styles”, counselling applicant to avoid over-confidence, over-involvement in helping other inmates—However, record suggesting applicant made valuable contribution to work of inmate committee—In absence of evidentiary foundation for warden’s negative assessment, both warden’s decision, senior deputy commissioner’s third-level grievance decision lacking justification, transparency, intelligibility required of reasonable decisions—Application allowed.
Spidel v. Canada (Attorney General) (T-1933-10, 2011 FC 999, Mactavish J., judgment dated August 15, 2011, 16 pp.)