Date: 20020517
Docket: T-2257-00
Ottawa, Ontario, May 17, 2002
Before: Pinard J.
Between:
PIERRE-PAUL POULIN
Plaintiff
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendant
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
|
|
Yvon Pinard
JUDGE |
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
Date: 20020517
Docket: T-2257-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 556
Between:
PIERRE-PAUL POULIN
Plaintiff
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.
[1] This application for judicial review is asking the Court to quash the decision of the acting Deputy Commissioner, Organizational Development, Yvan Thibault ("the Deputy Commissioner") on October 25, 2000, affirming the dismissal of the plaintiff's third-level grievance. The latter accordingly sought a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of penitentiaries to hear and respond to the third-level grievance, No. V8000A003504.
[2] The plaintiff, Pierre-Paul Poulin, is an inmate in the custody of Correctional Service Canada. He is imprisoned at the Mission Institution, a federal penitentiary located in British Columbia. He is serving a sentence for four counts of first-degree murder.
[3] In 1997 the plaintiff was the subject of a risk evaluation by the psychologist Pierre J. Ouellet. In his assessment the latter used a tool for predicting the risk of a repeat offence by an offender known as "PCL-R" (Psychopathic Check List - Revised). The results of the recidivism risk-factor evaluation of the plaintiff were contained in a report dated March 14, 1997.
[4] On April 24, 2000 the plaintiff filed a complaint against the psychologist Ouellet's report. He alleged that the psychologist had not obtained his consent to the PCL-R evaluation. He asked that the report be deleted from his file (complaint No. V8000A003504).
[5] On May 8, 2000 Tracey Marcer, chief, administrative services, at the Mission Institution dismissed the plaintiff's complaint No. V8000A003504, and he then appealed that decision. His appeal was dismissed at the first and second levels.
[6] At the third (national) level, the plaintiff's grievance was considered and dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner on October 25, 2000: hence the instant application for judicial review.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
[7] Yvan Thibault, acting Deputy Commissioner, Organizational Development, in his decision of October 25, 2000 concluded as follows:
[TRANSLATION]
We therefore concluded that as the report by the psychologist P. Ouellet was dated March 14, 1997 and you submitted your objections by a complaint dated May 4, 2000, nearly three years after the said report was prepared, the said delay must be taken into consideration here. Your grievance dismissed for this reason.
Further, s. 24(2) of the Act provides that "where an offender who has been given access to information by the Service pursuant to subsection 23(2) believes that there is an error or omission therein, (a) the offender may request the Service to correct that information; and (b) where the request is refused, the Service shall attach to the information a notation indicating that the offender has requested a correction and setting out the correction requested".
In this regard, in your first complaint (V8000A000264), you received a complete answer to your request for a correction, that is, you were informed that the risk evaluation done by Pierre Ouellet in 1997 and the addendum of January 12, 1998 would remain in your file.
In the circumstances, we conclude that no further action is necessary in processing your grievance, since first, the deadline in submitting your complaint (nearly three years after the report in question was prepared) was not reasonable, and finally, a reply to a previous complaint categorically informed you that your application would not be granted.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
[8] In Tehrankari v. Canada (Correctional Service), [2000] F.C.J. No. 495 (F.C.T.D.), Lemieux J. noted the standard of review applicable to the Correctional Service Canada grievance process. He said:
[33] A word needs to be said about the standard of review applicable in this case keeping in mind the type of decision made and the decision-maker (see Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817. In Baker, supra, L'Heureux-Dubé J. pointed out it was held in Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 982, a decision which related to the determination of a question of law in that case, (in the interpretation of the exclusion provisions in section 2 of the Immigration Act as they related to the definition of Convention refugee) made by the Immigration and Refugee Board, was subject to a standard of review of correctness but on other questions, the standard of review varied.
. . . . .
[44] To conclude on this point, I would apply a correctness standard if the question involved is the proper interpretation of section 24 of the Act; however, I would apply the standard of reasonableness simpliciter if the question involved is either the application of proper legal principles to the facts or whether the refusal decision to correct information on the offender's file was proper. The patently unreasonable standard applies to pure findings of fact. (Subsection 18.2(4) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7.)
[9] In the case at bar, the conclusions drawn by the Deputy Commissioner are based on the application of the proper legal principles to the facts. Consequently, the applicable standard of judicial review is that of the reasonable decision simpliciter.
[10] The plaintiff alleged that the Deputy Commissioner exercised his power in bad faith, arbitrarily and without regard to the proper considerations. I feel that this argument is without merit.
[11] Paragraph 13 of Commissioner's Directive 081, which deals with inmate complaints and grievances, provides as follows:
13. If an offender is unable to resolve a problem through discussions with staff, or chooses not to do so, he may submit a written complaint through the Institutional Grievance Coordinator or through the District Office. Normally, the problem shall have occurred within the previous 30 days.
(My emphasis.)
[12] The plaintiff asked that the report of the psychologist Pierre J. Ouellet be deleted from his file for the following reasons: the psychologist did not obtain his consent to the PCL-R evaluation, and he was in any case not qualified to conduct such a risk evaluation. On account of the excessive delay, that is three years after preparation of the psychological report and the 30 days indicated in para. 13 of Commissioner's Directive 081, I feel that the Deputy Commissioner was justified in reaching the conclusion that he did.
[13] Previously, in another complaint (No. V8000A000264) dated February 22, 1999, the plaintiff had submitted that he did not consent to the risk evaluation done by the psychologist Ouellet. Subsequently, in a decision dated May 31, 1999, the plaintiff was informed by Regional Counsellor Dr. H. Scott that the psychological report would remain in his file. The plaintiff never filed any grievance against that decision.
[14] In view of all these circumstances, therefore, I consider that the grievance in question by the plaintiff was processed fairly and expeditiously (see s. 90 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20). In my opinion, in view of the fact that the plaintiff waited three years before filing his complaint No. V3000A003504, and further in view of the fact that he was given a reply to a previous complaint, filed about a year earlier and relating to the same psychological report, namely that the psychological report in question would remain in the file, the Deputy Commissioner could reasonably reach the conclusion that he did.
[15] Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
|
|
Yvon Pinard
JUDGE |
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
May 17, 2002
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: T-2257-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: Pierre-Paul Poulin v. The Attorney General of Canada
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: April 25, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: Pinard J.
DATED: May 17, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Pierre-Paul Poulin THE PLAINTIFF FOR HIMSELF
Marie Crowley FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Pierre-Paul Poulin THE PLAINTIFF FOR HIMSELF
Vancouver, British Columbia
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE DEFENDANT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario