Ottawa, Ontario, November 7, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Beaudry
BETWEEN:
and
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] This is an application for judicial review pursuant to section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, of a decision dated March 16, 2006, of Don Head, Senior Deputy Commissioner (SDC), which upheld the Applicant’s Third Level Grievance that his medium security classification should not have been overridden to maximum security. The Applicant brings this application because he alleges that while the SDC upheld his grievance, no corrective action was taken to his classification.
ISSUES
[2] The issues raised in this judicial review application are as follows:
1. Did the SDC breach the Applicant’s statutory rights to information by failing to disclose additional information obtained from institutional staff for the purpose of the third-level analysis?
2. Did the SDC commit a patently unreasonable error when he upheld the third level grievance but declined to order a reassessment of the Applicant’s security reclassification?
3. If the response to the second question is affirmative, is the matter moot in any event?
[3] For the following reasons, the answer to questions 1 and 2 is negative. The present application shall be dismissed.
BACKGROUND
[4] The Applicant is a Dangerous Offender serving a sentence of life imprisonment for property offences as well as one conviction for uttering threats, two convictions of rape (1974), sexual intercourse with a female under 14 years (1974) and attempted rape (1974). The Applicant had a prior federal conviction of sexual assault in 1968. The Applicant began his sentence on November 11, 1974.
[5] While incarcerated, the Applicant sexually assaulted two female Correctional Services Canada (CSC) staff members: he was convicted of sexual assault causing bodily harm against a female CSC staff member and sentenced to ten years in 1984. In 1996, he was again charged and convicted of sexual assault and uttering threats, against a second female staff member at the Donnacona Institution.
[6] On March 4, 2002, the Applicant was put in the Segregation Unit at Mission Institution after it was learned that he had been stalking a female staff member in his living unit for a period of two months. Given the Applicant’s history of assault on female staff members, and his lack of insight into his offending, the Applicant’s behaviour was deemed to be such that he could no longer be safely managed in a medium-security environment, such as Mission Institution. He was viewed as a high risk to re-offend sexually and thus a high risk to public safety. Transfer to a maximum-security institution was deemed to be the only option. Indeed, the Applicant was transferred involuntarily to Kent Institution, a maximum-security penitentiary on March 19, 2002.
[7] Except for some non-sexually related charges, the Applicant led an incident free life at Kent Institution up to his voluntary transfer to Pacific Institution to take part in the first phase of the Odyssey Program, an Intensive Treatment Sex Offender Program, which began on October 27, 2005. The following day, the Applicant signed the following Behavioural Agreement (p. 97, Applicant’s Record):
Due to ongoing concerns regarding your behaviour, the following behavioural agreement is being put in place. The purpose of this agreement is to assist you with managing your behaviour at Pacific Institution so that you are able to complete the recommended program.
In order for you to remain at Pacific Institution and participate in the Odyssey Program, you will:
1) Not be alone with female staff.
2) Maintain a professional relationship with staff. More specifically, you will refrain from asking staff questions about their personal lives. You will also refrain from inappropriate gestures towards staff, which could be construed as having sexual overtones (e.g., touching, kissing, following staff etc).
3) Attend group sessions on time and complete homework on time.
4) Comply with all other program requirements especially regarding the completion of a behavioural progression and relapse prevention plan.
Any violation of these expectations may result in your dismissal from the program and transfer to another institution.
[8] The Applicant breached this agreement five times:
1) November 9, 2005: the Applicant was found frequenting the chapel during the day the female staff is alone.
2) November 15, 2005: the Applicant was in the library contrary to section 1 of his behavioural agreement.
3) December 8, 2005: the Applicant also violated section 1 when he visited the library with another inmate who was not expected to monitor him.
4) January 7, 2006: the Applicant was seen hovering about, hugging and kissing a church volunteer contrary to his behavioural agreement.
5) January 18, 2006: the Applicant failed to submit homework of the final phase of module 1 of the Odyssey program.
[9] For these breaches of the behavioural agreement and for not completing the Phase I assignments, the Applicant was temporarily removed from this program on February 3, 2006.
[10] The Applicant’s annual security classification reviews were overridden from medium to maximum security in 2003, 2004 and 2005. As a result, the Applicant filed an Inmate Grievance Presentation (second level) grievance of his security classification on September 26, 2005. This was denied on November 4, 2005.
[11] On November 30, 2005, the Applicant submitted an Inmate Grievance Presentation (third level) of his security classification, which was denied on March 16, 2006. The Applicant alleges that there were communications regarding his status that were taken into consideration in the decision to deny his third level grievance. However, he was not provided with a copy of these communications prior to or after the decision was taken. The Applicant received these communications as a result of a Rule 317 request on this judicial review application.
[12] It is this lack of disclosure of information and the failure of the SDC to take corrective action to review the override of his classification that form the crux of this application.
DECISION UNDER REVIEW
[13] The relevant parts of the decision by the SDC are as follows:
As part of the analysis at the third level, the following was reviewed: your previous grievance submission and the corresponding response; your Offender Management System (OMS) file; and relevant legislation and/or policy. Institutional staff were also contacted in order to gather additional information.
In your submissions, you claim that the override of your security classification from medium to maximum was not justified. You maintain that you fit the criteria for, and could be managed at, a medium-security institution.
Upon review of your most recent security classification (Assessment for Decision, 2005/08/08), which recommended an override from medium to maximum, it is noted that a detailed justification for the override was not presented, pursuant to Standing Operating Practice 700-14, Security Classification of Offenders, paragraph 23, which states:
23. Normally there will be no overrides above or below the rating produced by the Custody Rating Scale or the Security Reclassification Scale. Where the caseworker believes that it is necessary to override or underride the results of the Custody Rating Scale or the Security Reclassification Scale, he/she shall include a detailed justification in the Assessment for Decision in conformity with section 18 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, by setting out the analysis under the three headings of institutional adjustment, escape risk and risk to public safety.
This is not to say that there existed no justification for override, nor does it suggest that the potential for risk was not concerning and imminent; rather, it means that the rationale for override was not presented, detailed and justified as such in the Assessment for Decision (2005/08/08); therefore, this part of your grievance is upheld.
Since filing your grievance, it is not appropriate to order a reassessment of your security classification (and a proper detailed justification for override, if needed), nor is it appropriate to order that you be recommended for medium-security classification, given your recent behaviour at Pacific Institution.
Since your recent behaviour demonstrates a requirement for a high degree of supervision and control within the penitentiary, no corrective action will be required.
Given the above, your grievance is upheld.
As corrective action, the Institution Head of Kent Institution will ensure that any future security-classification reviews are articulated with a detailed and justified rationale, so as to afford the inmate the opportunity to know the information that was considered in making the decision, in accordance with Standard Operating Practice 700-14, paragraph 23 and the Duty to Act Fairly.
[emphasis in the original]
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
[14] Section 27 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act 1992, c. 20. (the CCRA) deals with information to be given to offenders. With its noted exceptions, the relevant portions of this section state as follows:
|
Information to be given to offenders 27. (1) Where an offender is entitled by this Part or the regulations to make representations in relation to a decision to be taken by the Service about the offender, the person or body that is to take the decision shall, subject to subsection (3), give the offender, a reasonable period before the decision is to be taken, all the information to be considered in the taking of the decision or a summary of that information.
Idem (2) Where an offender is entitled by this Part or the regulations to be given reasons for a decision taken by the Service about the offender, the person or body that takes the decision shall, subject to subsection (3), give the offender, forthwith after the decision is taken, all the information that was considered in the taking of the decision or a summary of that information.
Exceptions (3) Except in relation to decisions on disciplinary offences, where the Commissioner has reasonable grounds to believe that disclosure of information under subsection (1) or (2) would jeopardize (a) the safety of any person, (b) the security of a penitentiary, or (c) the conduct of any lawful investigation, the Commissioner may authorize the withholding from the offender of as much information as is strictly necessary in order to protect the interest identified in paragraph (a), (b) or (c). |
Communication de renseignements au délinquant 27. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (3), la personne ou l’organisme chargé de rendre, au nom du Service, une décision au sujet d’un délinquant doit, lorsque celui-ci a le droit en vertu de la présente partie ou des règlements de présenter des observations, lui communiquer, dans un délai raisonnable avant la prise de décision, tous les renseignements entrant en ligne de compte dans celle-ci, ou un sommaire de ceux-ci.
Idem (2) Sous réserve du paragraphe (3), cette personne ou cet organisme doit, dès que sa décision est rendue, faire connaître au délinquant qui y a droit au titre de la présente partie ou des règlements les renseignements pris en compte dans la décision, ou un sommaire de ceux-ci.
Exception (3) Sauf dans le cas des infractions disciplinaires, le commissaire peut autoriser, dans la mesure jugée strictement nécessaire toutefois, le refus de communiquer des renseignements au délinquant s’il a des motifs raisonnables de croire que cette communication mettrait en danger la sécurité d’une personne ou du pénitencier ou compromettrait la tenue d’une enquête licite.
|
[15] The authority for the classification of inmates to either a minimum, medium or maximum security is found in section 30 of the CCRA. The factors to consider are outlined in section 17 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations (the Regulations), SOR/92-620, s. 17.
|
Service to classify each inmate 30. (1) The Service shall assign a security classification of maximum, medium or minimum to each inmate in accordance with the regulations made under paragraph 96(z.6).
Service to give reasons (2) The Service shall give each inmate reasons, in writing, for assigning a particular security classification or for changing that classification.
Security classification 17. The Service shall take the following factors into consideration in determining the security classification to be assigned to an inmate pursuant to section 30 of the Act: (a) the seriousness of the offence committed by the inmate;
(b) any outstanding charges against the inmate;
(c) the inmate's performance and behaviour while under sentence;
(d) the inmate's social, criminal and, where available, young-offender history;
(e) any physical or mental illness or disorder suffered by the inmate;
(f) the inmate's potential for violent behaviour; and
(g) the inmate's continued involvement in criminal activities. |
Assignation
30. (1) Le Service assigne une cote de sécurité selon les catégories dites maximale, moyenne et minimale à chaque détenu conformément aux règlements d’application de l’alinéa 96z.6).
Motifs (2) Le Service doit donner, par écrit, à chaque détenu les motifs à l’appui de l’assignation d’une cote de sécurité ou du changement de celle-ci.
Cote de sécurité 17. Le Service détermine la cote de sécurité à assigner à chaque détenu conformément à l'article 30 de la Loi en tenant compte des facteurs suivants :
a) la gravité de l'infraction commise par le détenu;
b) toute accusation en instance contre lui;
c) son rendement et sa conduite pendant qu'il purge sa peine;
d) ses antécédents sociaux et criminels, y compris ses antécédents comme jeune contrevenant s'ils sont disponibles;
e) toute maladie physique ou mentale ou tout trouble mental dont il souffre;
f) sa propension à la violence;
g) son implication continue dans des activités criminelles. |
[16] Section 12 of the Regulations outlines the process for making an involuntary transfer of an inmate from one federal institution to another. This sections provides as follows:
|
12. Before the transfer of an inmate pursuant to section 29 of the Act, other than a transfer at the request of the inmate, an institutional head or a staff member designated by the institutional head shall
(a) give the inmate written notice of the proposed transfer, including the reasons for the proposed transfer and the proposed destination;
(b) after giving the inmate a reasonable opportunity to prepare representations with respect to the proposed transfer, meet with the inmate to explain the reasons for the proposed transfer and give the inmate an opportunity to make representations with respect to the proposed transfer in person or, if the inmate prefers, in writing;
(c) forward the inmate's representations to the Commissioner or to a staff member designated in accordance with paragraph 5(1)(b); and
(d) give the inmate written notice of the final decision respecting the transfer, and the reasons for the decision, (i) at least two days before the transfer if the final decision is to transfer the inmate, unless the inmate consents to a shorter period; and (ii) within five working days after the decision if the final decision is not to transfer the inmate. |
12. Sauf dans le cas du transfèrement demandé par le détenu, le directeur du pénitencier ou l'agent désigné par lui doit, avant le transfèrement du détenu en application de l'article 29 de la Loi :
a) l'aviser par écrit du transfèrement projeté, des motifs de cette mesure et de la destination;
b) après lui avoir donné la possibilité de préparer ses observations à ce sujet, le rencontrer pour lui expliquer les motifs du transfèrement projeté et lui donner la possibilité de présenter ses observations à ce sujet, en personne ou par écrit, au choix du détenu;
c) transmettre les observations du détenu au commissaire ou à l'agent désigné selon l'alinéa 5(1)b);
d) l'aviser par écrit de la décision définitive prise au sujet du transfèrement et des motifs de celle-ci : (i) au moins deux jours avant le transfèrement, sauf s'il consent à un délai plus bref lorsque la décision définitive est de le transférer, (ii) dans les cinq jours ouvrables suivant la décision, lorsque la décision définitive est de ne pas le transférer.
|
[17] The procedure for the presentation of grievances by inmates is set out both in the CCRA (sections 90 and 91) and the Regulations (sections 74 to 82). It is important to set these out in their entirety:
|
Grievance procedure 90. There shall be a procedure for fairly and expeditiously resolving offenders’ grievances on matters within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, and the procedure shall operate in accordance with the regulations made under paragraph 96(u).
Access to grievance procedure 91. Every offender shall have complete access to the offender grievance procedure without negative consequences.
Regulations Offender Grievance Procedure 74. (1) Where an offender is dissatisfied with an action or a decision by a staff member, the offender may submit a written complaint, preferably in the form provided by the Service, to the supervisor of that staff member.
(2) Where a complaint is submitted pursuant to subsection (1), every effort shall be made by staff members and the offender to resolve the matter informally through discussion.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a supervisor shall review a complaint and give the offender a copy of the supervisor's decision as soon as practicable after the offender submits the complaint.
(4) A supervisor may refuse to review a complaint submitted pursuant to subsection (1) where, in the opinion of the supervisor, the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or is not made in good faith.
(5) Where a supervisor refuses to review a complaint pursuant to subsection (4), the supervisor shall give the offender a copy of the supervisor's decision, including the reasons for the decision, as soon as practicable after the offender submits the complaint.
75. Where a supervisor refuses to review a complaint pursuant to subsection 74(4) or where an offender is not satisfied with the decision of a supervisor referred to in subsection 74(3), the offender may submit a written grievance, preferably in the form provided by the Service,
(a) to the institutional head or to the director of the parole district, as the case may be; or
(b) where the institutional head or director is the subject of the grievance, to the head of the region.
76. (1) The institutional head, director of the parole district or head of the region, as the case may be, shall review a grievance to determine whether the subject-matter of the grievance falls within the jurisdiction of the Service.
(2) Where the subject-matter of a grievance does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Service, the person who is reviewing the grievance pursuant to subsection (1) shall advise the offender in writing and inform the offender of any other means of redress available.
77. (1) In the case of an inmate's grievance, where there is an inmate grievance committee in the penitentiary, the institutional head may refer the grievance to that committee.
(2) An inmate grievance committee shall submit its recommendations respecting an inmate's grievance to the institutional head as soon as practicable after the grievance is referred to the committee.
(3) The institutional head shall give the inmate a copy of the institutional head's decision as soon as practicable after receiving the recommendations of the inmate grievance committee.
78. The person who is reviewing a grievance pursuant to section 75 shall give the offender a copy of the person's decision as soon as practicable after the offender submits the grievance.
79. (1) Where the institutional head makes a decision respecting an inmate's grievance, the inmate may request that the institutional head refer the inmate's grievance to an outside review board, and the institutional head shall refer the grievance to an outside review board.
(2) The outside review board shall submit its recommendations to the institutional head as soon as practicable after the grievance is referred to the board.
(3) The institutional head shall give the inmate a copy of the institutional head's decision as soon as practicable after receiving the recommendations of the outside review board.
80. (1) Where an offender is not satisfied with a decision of the institutional head or director of the parole district respecting the offender's grievance, the offender may appeal the decision to the head of the region.
(2) Where an offender is not satisfied with the decision of the head of the region respecting the offender's grievance, the offender may appeal the decision to the Commissioner.
(3) The head of the region or the Commissioner, as the case may be, shall give the offender a copy of the head of the region's or Commissioner's decision, including the reasons for the decision, as soon as practicable after the offender submits an appeal.
81. (1) Where an offender decides to pursue a legal remedy for the offender's complaint or grievance in addition to the complaint and grievance procedure referred to in these Regulations, the review of the complaint or grievance pursuant to these Regulations shall be deferred until a decision on the alternate remedy is rendered or the offender decides to abandon the alternate remedy.
(2) Where the review of a complaint or grievance is deferred pursuant to subsection (1), the person who is reviewing the complaint or grievance shall give the offender written notice of the decision to defer the review.
82. In reviewing an offender's complaint or grievance, the person reviewing the complaint or grievance shall take into consideration
(a) any efforts made by staff members and the offender to resolve the complaint or grievance, and any recommendations resulting therefrom;
(b) any recommendations made by an inmate grievance committee or outside review board; and
(c) any decision made respecting an alternate remedy referred to in subsection 81(1). |
Procédure de règlement 90. Est établie, conformément aux règlements d’application de l’alinéa 96u), une procédure de règlement juste et expéditif des griefs des délinquants sur des questions relevant du commissaire.
Accès à la procédure de règlement des griefs 91. Tout délinquant doit, sans crainte de représailles, avoir libre accès à la procédure de règlement des griefs.
Règlements Procédure de règlement de griefs des délinquants 74. (1) Lorsqu'il est insatisfait d'une action ou d'une décision de l'agent, le délinquant peut présenter une plainte au supérieur de cet agent, par écrit et de préférence sur une formule fournie par le Service.
(2) Les agents et le délinquant qui a présenté une plainte conformément au paragraphe (1) doivent prendre toutes les mesures utiles pour régler la question de façon informelle.
(3) Sous réserve des paragraphes (4) et (5), le supérieur doit examiner la plainte et fournir copie de sa décision au délinquant aussitôt que possible après que celui-ci a présenté sa plainte.
(4) Le supérieur peut refuser d'examiner une plainte présentée conformément au paragraphe (1) si, à son avis, la plainte est futile ou vexatoire ou n'est pas faite de bonne foi.
(5) Lorsque, conformément au paragraphe (4), le supérieur refuse d'examiner une plainte, il doit fournir au délinquant une copie de sa décision motivée aussitôt que possible après que celui-ci a présenté sa plainte.
75. Lorsque, conformément au paragraphe 74(4), le supérieur refuse d'examiner la plainte ou que la décision visée au paragraphe 74(3) ne satisfait pas le délinquant, celui-ci peut présenter un grief, par écrit et de préférence sur une formule fournie par le Service :
a) soit au directeur du pénitencier ou au directeur de district des libérations conditionnelles, selon le cas;
b) soit, si c'est le directeur du pénitencier ou le directeur de district des libérations conditionnelles qui est mis en cause, au responsable de la région.
76. (1) Le directeur du pénitencier, le directeur de district des libérations conditionnelles ou le responsable de la région, selon le cas, doit examiner le grief afin de déterminer s'il relève de la compétence du Service.
(2) Lorsque le grief porte sur un sujet qui ne relève pas de la compétence du Service, la personne qui a examiné le grief conformément au paragraphe (1) doit en informer le délinquant par écrit et lui indiquer les autres recours possibles.
77. (1) Dans le cas d'un grief présenté par le détenu, lorsqu'il existe un comité d'examen des griefs des détenus dans le pénitencier, le directeur du pénitencier peut transmettre le grief à ce comité.
(2) Le comité d'examen des griefs des détenus doit présenter au directeur ses recommandations au sujet du grief du détenu aussitôt que possible après en avoir été saisi.
(3) Le directeur du pénitencier doit remettre au détenu une copie de sa décision aussitôt que possible après avoir reçu les recommandations du comité d'examen des griefs des détenus.
78. La personne qui examine un grief selon l'article 75 doit remettre copie de sa décision au délinquant aussitôt que possible après que le détenu a présenté le grief.
79. (1) Lorsque le directeur du pénitencier rend une décision concernant le grief du détenu, celui-ci peut demander que le directeur transmette son grief à un comité externe d'examen des griefs, et le directeur doit accéder à cette demande.
(2) Le comité externe d'examen des griefs doit présenter au directeur du pénitencier ses recommandations au sujet du grief du détenu aussitôt que possible après en avoir été saisi.
(3) Le directeur du pénitencier doit remettre au détenu une copie de sa décision aussitôt que possible après avoir reçu les recommandations du comité externe d'examen des griefs.
80. (1) Lorsque le délinquant est insatisfait de la décision rendue au sujet de son grief par le directeur du pénitencier ou par le directeur de district des libérations conditionnelles, il peut en appeler au responsable de la région.
(2) Lorsque le délinquant est insatisfait de la décision rendue au sujet de son grief par le responsable de la région, il peut en appeler au commissaire.
(3) Le responsable de la région ou le commissaire, selon le cas, doit transmettre au délinquant copie de sa décision motivée aussitôt que possible après que le délinquant a interjeté appel.
81. (1) Lorsque le délinquant décide de prendre un recours judiciaire concernant sa plainte ou son grief, en plus de présenter une plainte ou un grief selon la procédure prévue dans le présent règlement, l'examen de la plainte ou du grief conformément au présent règlement est suspendu jusqu'à ce qu'une décision ait été rendue dans le recours judiciaire ou que le détenu s'en désiste.
(2) Lorsque l'examen de la plainte ou au grief est suspendu conformément au paragraphe (1), la personne chargée de cet examen doit en informer le délinquant par écrit.
82. Lors de l'examen de la plainte ou du grief, la personne chargée de cet examen doit tenir compte :
a) des mesures prises par les agents et le délinquant pour régler la question sur laquelle porte la plainte ou le grief et des recommandations en découlant;
b) des recommandations faites par le comité d'examen des griefs des détenus et par le comité externe d'examen des griefs;
c) de toute décision rendue dans le recours judiciaire visé au paragraphe 81(1). |
ANALYSIS
1. Did the SDC breach the Applicant’s statutory rights to information by failing to disclose additional information obtained from institutional staff for the purpose of the third-level analysis?
Standard of Review
[18] In Canada (Attorney General) v. Sketchley, 2005 FCA 404, [2005] F.C.J. No. 2056 (C.A.) (QL), the Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the distinction to be made between judicial review on the grounds of procedural fairness and the standard of review in other cases of substantial judicial review (at paragraph 52 and 53). The pragmatic and functional analysis applies only to the latter, whereas the former is reviewed on the basis of law and no deference is due. This is what Mr. Justice Linden said at paragraph 53, in citing the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Canadian Union of Public Employees (C.U.P.E.) v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), 2003 SCC 29, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539, (CUPE):
CUPE directs a court, when reviewing a decision challenged on the grounds of procedural fairness, to isolate any act or omission relevant to procedural fairness (at para. 100). This procedural fairness element is reviewed as a question of law. No deference is due. The decision-maker has either complied with the content of the duty of fairness appropriate for the particular circumstances, or has breached this duty.
[19] Counsel for the Applicant argues (at paragraphs 47 and 48 of his Memorandum of Fact and Law) that the SDC expressly stated in his decision that institutional staff were contacted to gather additional information for the purpose of the third level analysis. The SDC did not disclose this information concerning his recent behaviour at Pacific Institution, or a reasonably detailed summary was not disclosed to the Applicant. By failing to provide the Applicant with the Executive Summary before and after the decision was taken, Counsel for the Applicant argues the SDC violated the Applicant’s statutory rights to information pursuant to section 27 of the CCRA.
[20] In my view, the Applicant’s argument on this issue must fail for it is without basis in law. Section 27 is not applicable to grievances regarding the security classification of inmates. The applicable section pertaining to security classification is set out in section 30 of the CCRA and the corresponding procedures to follow are outlined in section 17 of the Regulations.
[21] In neither of these statutory provisions is an offender accorded the right to disclosure of information prior to a decision on security classification. This issue was dealt with by the British Columbia Supreme Court at paragraphs 57 to 62, in Dorcheid v. Kent Institution, [1998] B.C.J. No. 1866 (QL). In this regard, I note the following observations by that Court as set out in paragraphs 61 and 62:
However, in contrast to an involuntary transfer, neither the Act nor the Regulation contains any right for the inmate to make representations prior to a decision on security reclassification. This also means that s. 27(1) of the Act has no application to a decision on security reclassification, and an inmate has no statutory right to disclosure of any information before the decision has been taken. Thus, there is no statutory right to a hearing prior to a decision on security reclassification. If any such right exists, it must arise either at common law or from the Charter.
An inmate who is dissatisfied with a decision on security reclassification does, however, have some recourse in the grievance procedures required by s. 90 of the Act (set out in detail in ss. 74-82 of the Regulations).
[22] However, in contrast to this the involuntary transfer to Kent Institution for example would be governed by the disclosure provisions of subsection 27(2). But the involuntary transfer is not what is at issue in this case. It is the third level grievance regarding the Applicant’s security reclassification from medium to maximum security.
[23] In my view, the SDC did not breach the Applicant’s statutory rights to information by failing to disclose additional information obtained from institutional staff for the purpose of the third-level analysis. The Applicant enjoyed no such right to disclosure of information prior to the SDC’s decision to override the Applicant’s security classification.
[24] If the Court is wrong on this interpretation, it adds that it agrees with paragraphs 40, 41 and 44 on the Respondent's Memorandum of Fact and Law:
40. The applicant was clearly aware of this past behavior; and that his behavior was a serious concern for CSC officials because it constituted a potential threat to the safety of the female employees.
41. In an institutional environment, an inmate's behavior is a very important consideration, as is the security of staff.
44. For the Applicant to argue that he was not aware that his conduct with respect to female staff would not be taken into consideration is to ignore the single largest security concern that CSC has with respect to the Applicant.
- Did the SDC commit a patently unreasonable error when he upheld the third level grievance but declined to order a reassessment of the Applicant’s security reclassification?
Standard of review
[25] In Dr. Q. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226, the Supreme Court of Canada established the following four factors to consider to determine the applicable standard of review:
a. presence of a privative clause or right of appeal
[26] There is no privative clause in the CCRA and in particular with respect to grievance decisions. Parliament has recognized that offenders maintain their rights even while in prison. There are extensive internal review mechanisms through which inmates can pursue their disagreements with decisions and procedures followed by the Respondent. The silence of the legislation renders this factor neutral in the overall functional and pragmatic analysis and implies deference by the reviewing court where the decision is fact based. The parties agree that the decision to reclassify is based on the assessment of facts regarding the Applicant’s history of sexually assaulting female staff.
b. relative expertise of the tribunal vis-à-vis the Court
[27] It is trite law that there can be no competition between the expertise of prison administrators and that of judges with respect to the administration of penitentiaries. Those who are called to administer federal penal institutions have a twin role to balance the protection of the public with the rehabilitation of its inmates. The scales of justice with which judges must weigh their decisions are case specific and demand not nearly as much expertise as the SDC for instance must master. As such, the reviewing judge must accord an increased level of deference to the SDC.
c. the purpose of the statute
[28] Section 30 is intended to give the Service the authority to classify inmates based on information gleaned from a variety of sources. The purpose of classification is not only to protect the public but also to ensure the rehabilitation of inmates and ensure the prisons are safe work and living environments for both staff and inmates. The classification and placement of the offender during the intake assessment are key fact based determinations. Moreover, the annual classification reviews of offenders as in this case may be overridden or under-ridden by the SDC based on the specific facts surrounding an inmate’s immediate past and/or future behaviour. This requires not only a careful review of facts but also relies on the appropriate application of various policies and guiding principles, including the CCRA and the Commissioner’s Directives and Standard Operating Practices. This factor implies increased deference.
d. the nature of the question
[29] The nature of the question at issue demands a high degree of deference. Not only is the decision at the third level grievance largely fact specific, but the decision not to change the Applicant’s classification from maximum back to medium security is also based on the Applicant’s breach of the Behavioural Agreement that was signed at the Pacific Institution on October 28, 2005.
[30] As a result of this review of the four factors in the pragmatic and functional analysis, the standard of review is patent unreasonableness. After a careful review of the Applicant’s affidavit and the certified copy of the substantive record that was before the SDC, I do not find that it was patently unreasonable for the SDC at the third-level grievance to uphold the findings of the decision-makers who overrode the Applicant’s classification. There was more than ample evidence before the SDC to suggest that the Applicant’s behaviour while in the Pacific Institution gave pause to be concerned that the potential for risk was not unfounded. It was therefore not inconsistent or patently unreasonable for the SDC to find that there perhaps should have been more details presented to justify the override in classification and also to decline to reverse that decision.
[31] Finally, it should be noted that the SDC did order corrective action, in that the decision provides as follows:
As corrective action, the Institution Head of Kent Institution will ensure that any future security-classification reviews are articulated with a detailed and justified rationale, so as to afford the inmate the opportunity to know the information that was considered in making the decision, in accordance with Standard Operating Practice 700-14, paragraph 23 and the Duty to Act Fairly.
3. If the response to the second question is affirmative, is the matter moot in any event?
[32] Having reached a negative conclusion with respect to the second question, this matter itself is moot. Finally, it has to be noted that at hearing, the respondent filed the applicant's most recent Assessment for Decision (July 2006) from Kent Institution which indicates:
RECOMMENDATION
Dec. # Decision Recommendation
71 OFFENDER SECURITY LEVEL MAXIMUM
REGULAR
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no award of costs.
“Michel Beaudry”
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-653-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: ROGER LEBLANC
and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: October 26, 2006
APPEARANCES:
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Dana Kripp FOR APPLICANT
Vancouver, British Columbia
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR RESPONDENT
Vancouver, British Columbia