Docket: T-902-96
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1997
| PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HUGESSEN |
| BETWEEN: |
GHISLAIN GRENIER
Applicant
AND:
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA
Respondent
Application for judicial review to quash a decision rendered on March 21, 1996 by the Independent Chairperson of the serious offences court of Donnacona Institution under section 40(l) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
[Rule 1602 of the Federal Court Rules]
O R D E R
The application is allowed and the impugned decision is set aside.
| James K. Hugessen |
| J.A. |
Certified true translation
Christiane Delon
T-902-96
| BETWEEN: |
GHISLAIN GRENIER
Applicant
AND:
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA
Respondent
T-903-96
BETWEEN:
LOUIS FILLION
Applicant
AND:
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA
Respondent
T-917-96
BETWEEN:
STEPHANE MORIN
Applicant
AND:
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA
Respondent
T-918-96
| BETWEEN: |
RÉJEAN DEGENOVA
Applicant
AND:
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA
Respondent
T-919-96
BETWEEN:
DANIEL LAPLANTE
Applicant
AND:
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
(Pronounced at the hearing in Montréal,
Tuesday, October 14, 1997)
HUGESSEN J.
[1] These are five applications for judicial review in regard to five decisions by a penitentiary disciplinary court. Only one issue is worthy of consideration.
[2] All of the applicants were found guilty of failing to provide a urine sample pursuant to a request that was made to them under section 54(a) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act:
54. Subject to section 56 and subsection 57(1), a staff member may demand that an inmate submit to urinalysis
(a) where the staff member believes on reasonable grounds that the inmate has committed or is committing the disciplinary offence referred to in paragraph 40(k) and that a urine sample is necessary to provide evidence of the offence, and the staff member obtains the prior authorization of the institutional head;
54. L'agent peut obliger un détenu à lui fournir un échantillon d'urine dans l'un ou l'autre des cas suivants:
a) il a obtenu l'autorisation du directeur et a des motifs raisonnables de croire que le détenu commet ou a commis l'infraction visée à l'alinéa 40k) et qu'un échantillon d'urine est nécessaire afin d'en prouver la perpétration;
[3] The issue is whether the person who made the demand to the applicants, in this case Mr. F. Brisson, gave sufficient notice of "the basis of the demand" within the meaning of section 56 of the Act:
56. Where a demand is made of an offender to submit to urinalysis pursuant to section 54 or 55, the person making the demand shall forthwith inform the offender of the basis of the demand and the consequences of non-compliance.
56. La prise d'échantillon d'urine fait obligatoirement l'objet d'un avis à l'intéressé la justifiant et exposant les conséquences éventuelles d'un refus.
[4] The notice was given in writing. Under the heading "Motif" - "Reason", the box "Motifs raisonnables (expliquez)" - "Reasonable grounds (please explain)" was ticked off. The handwritten text reads in full as follows:
[Translation] 96-02-03 about 20:45 the subject consumed a substance in the Y common room. (toilet)
[5] In my opinion, and with respect, this notice is clearly insufficient. It more or less clearly describes the alleged offence with a good number of particulars as to the time, date and place. But it does not at all give the basis of the demand because it provides no details concerning the grounds, reasonable or otherwise, that the officer had.
[6] At the hearing before the disciplinary court, Mr. Brisson tried to complete his incomplete information and stated that he had disclosed to the applicants at the time of the demand that he was relying on a report by a correctional officer. In my opinion this evidence was inadmissible. I need not rule on the issue of whether the notice required by section 56 must always be in writing, although I note that this is the clear sense of paragraph 15 of Commissioner"s Directive 572 of 1994-05-27.1 However, I do believe that when the authorities decide to give a written notice it must necessarily comply with all the requirements of the Act. In this case, and for the reasons given, it is incomplete.
[7] The applications will be allowed and the impugned decisions will be set aside.
| James K. Hugessen |
| J.A. |
Montréal, October 14, 1997
Certified true translation
Christiane Delon
Federal Court of Canada
Docket: T-902-96
BETWEEN:
GHISLAIN GRENIER
Applicant
AND:
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| FILE NO. T-902-96 |
| STYLE: GHISLAIN GRENIER |
Applicant
| AND: |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA |
Respondent
| FILE NO. T-903-96 |
| STYLE: LOUIS FILLION |
Applicant
| AND: |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA |
Respondent
| FILE NO. T-917-96 |
| STYLE: STEPHANE MORIN |
Applicant
| AND: |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA |
Respondent
| FILE NO. T-918-96 |
| STYLE: RÉJEAN DEGENOVA |
Applicant
| AND: |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA |
Respondent
| FILE NO. T-919-96 |
| STYLE: DANIEL LAPLANTE |
Applicant
| AND: |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA |
Respondent
| PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec |
| DATE OF HEARING: October 14, 1997 |
REASONS AT HEARING BY THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HUGESSEN
| DATED: October 14, 1997 |
APPEARANCES:
| Martin Latour for the applicants |
| Guy A. Blouin for the respondent |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Labelle, Boudreault, Côté et Assoc.
| Montréal, Quebec for the applicants |
| George Thomson |
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
| Ottawa, Ontario for the respondent |
Docket: T-902-96
BETWEEN:
GHISLAIN GRENIER
Applicant
AND:
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
Docket: T-903-96
BETWEEN:
LOUIS FILLION
Applicant
AND:
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
Docket: T-917-96
BETWEEN:
STEPHANE MORIN
Applicant
AND:
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
Docket: T-918-96
BETWEEN:
RÉJEAN DEGENOVA
Applicant
AND:
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
Docket: T-919-96
BETWEEN:
DANIEL LAPLANTE
Applicant
AND:
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
__________________
| 15. The person requiring a urine sample of an offender shall advise him or her in writing by using the appropriate form and including: a. the basis upon which the sample has been required; b. the consequences of non-compliance with the requirement |
15. La personne qui demande un échantillon d"urine à un délinquant doit l"aviser par écrit en indiquant, sur le formulaire approprié: a.les motifs pour lesquels l"échantillon est demandé; b.les conséquences d"un refus de la demande. |