T-239-81
Paul Rose (Applicant)
v.
National Parole Board (Respondent)
Trial Division, Dubé J.—Montreal, February 23;
Ottawa, February 24, 1981.
Practice — Discovery — Production of documents —
Applicant seeks to produce two reports relating to his parole,
in support of a prior application by him for a writ of certiorari
— Affidavit already filed in support of application for pre
rogative writ — Whether extraneous evidence may be added to
the affidavit already filed — Parole Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-2.
APPLICATION.
COUNSEL:
R. Lemieux and C. Lebeau for applicant.
J. Ouellet, Q.C. for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Lemieux & Lebeau, Montreal, for applicant.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent.
The following is the English version of the
reasons for order rendered by
DuBÉ J.: This is an application for the produc
tion of documents, two reports relating to the
parole of the applicant, to be considered in support
of a prior application by the applicant for a writ of
certiorari pursuant to section 18 of the Federal
Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10.
To begin with, I am not persuaded that in
support of an originating motion seeking a pre
rogative writ extraneous evidence ought to be
added to the affidavit already filed.
In any case, it does not appear to me that the
two documents sought would be of any assistance
in the consideration of the first motion, since it is
based on the allegation that the Board failed in its
"duty to act fairly" within the meaning of recent
decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.' This
duty to act fairly does not relate to the advisability
of the Board's decision, but to the manner, or the
procedure followed in arriving at that decision: an
administrative tribunal must act fairly, that is in
good faith and not in an arbitrary manner, by
providing the inmate with all the procedural pro
tections necessary in the circumstances.
Furthermore, if I did have the jurisdiction to
review the Board's decision on its merits, and I do
not, I would need more than those two documents.
I would have to substitute myself to the Board,
examine the entire record, and hear the opinions
and advice of experts in the matter, in order to
render such a judgment. The Parole Act, R.S.C.
1970, c. P-2 does not provide this Court with such
authority.
For these reasons the application is dismissed,
but in the circumstances without costs.
ORDER
The application is dismissed without costs.
' Ex parte McCaud [1965] 1 C.C.C. 168. Howarth v. Na
tional Parole Board [1976] 1 S.C.R. 453. Mitchell v. The
Queen [1976] 2 S.C.R. 570. Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk
Regional Board of Commissioners of Police [1979] 1 S.C.R.
311. The Attorney General of Canada v. Inuit Tapirisat of
Canada [1980] 2 S.C.R. 735.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.