PENITENTIARIES |
Crews v. Canada (Attorney General)
T-1514-02
2003 FC 1144, Gauthier J.
3/10/03
10 pp.
Judicial review of Donnacona penitentiary (institution) disciplinary court (DC) decision sentencing applicant to 20 days without television privilege for participating in activity likely to jeopardize security of penitentiary pursuant to Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), s. 40(m)-- Whether DC breached duty of fairness by refusing applicant right to view video recording of incident in courtyard-- Applicant arguing DC's refusal to show him videotape constituting breach of Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations (CCRR), s. 31(1) as well as Quebec Charter, s. 35, which guarantees every accused right to full and complete defence--Issue therefore whether DC's finding video recording not relevant to its inquiry containing reviewable error--Video in fact made from interior of detention centre with no sound or image of what went on in walkway where security guard who gave order to return to cells was standing--Also, video camera had been brought in to record use of tear gas in courtyard, thus, did not record 15 or 20 minutes before such event--On that basis, president held, given nature of offence before him, video could not shed any light on any contested issue before him--Based on evidence, video showed at best only number of inmates in courtyard, the height of fire, courtyard, where each inmate was when courtyard gassed, and how inmates exited courtyard thereafter --Decision of DC containing no reviewable error and no breach of Regulations, s. 31(1)(a) or of duty of fairness as applying to such disciplinary proceedings--Further, no serious injustice done to applicant so as to justify intervention by Court--Whether DC patently unreasonable in its interpretation of testimonial evidence and whether it erred in finding applicant guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" as required by CCRA, s. 43--Applicant arguing pursuant to CCRA, s. 43, offence must be established beyond any reasonable doubt--Applicant arguing decision of DC patently unreasonable because evidence could not support such finding given that (i) orders to evacuate courtyard given in French only; (ii) applicant did not understand French; (iii) applicant testified went back to cell as soon as he could; and (iv) none of security officers could specifically recall seeing him in courtyard--Applicant also submitted complaint too vague for him to present proper defence because failure to comply with order breach of s. 40(a) of CCRA as opposed to s. 40(m) of CCRA--Relevant section of CCRA expressly mentioned in inmate offence report and notification of charge and description of offence contained enough particulars to enable applicant to prepare defence--Evidence described above under (i) and (ii) not relevant to decision under review for it is clear from reasons given by DC that it relied mainly on testimony of security guard, on his use of body language to convey his order and warning to inmates and on other circumstantial evidence such as proximity of security guard to inmates--As to two other issues described in (iii) and (iv), applicant admitted he was in courtyard and there is evidence that he could leave courtyard when ordered to do so as door unlocked--In light of evidence adduced before it, DC could reasonably reach conclusion applicant guilty of offence described in CCRA, s. 40(m)--Certainly not clearly irrational or patently unreasonable for DC to make such finding-- Therefore, judicial review dismissed--Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, ss. 40, 43-- Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92- 620, s. 31(1)--Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q., c. C-12, s. 35.