PENITENTIARIES |
Terreault v. Cowansville Penitentiary
T-156-02
2003 FC 1529, Blanchard J.
31/12/03
18 pp.
Judicial review of decision of Chairperson of disciplinary court of Cowansville Institution (court), finding applicant guilty of being disrespectful or abusive to corrections officers and threatening to commit assaults--Whether court failed to exercise procedural fairness in process leading to decision, and if so, whether failure resulted in serious injustice to applicant--Hendrickson v. Kent Institution (1990), 32 F.T.R. 296 (F.C.T.D.) holding applicant must first show departure from procedural fairness, and second, serious injustice caused by it, or court's decision will be upheld--If breach of procedural fairness, must consider whether facts fall within exception stated in Mobil Oil Canada Ltd. v. Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 202--First, Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, s. 31(1)(a) not observed--In case at bar, applicant's witnesses not present at hearing despite fact he made formal request for their presence and objected to proceeding without witnesses--Another breach of procedural fairness lay in fact evidence which applicant wished to present at hearing not forwarded to court--According to test in Mobil Oil Canada Ltd., supra, court must determine whether outcome would have been same despite infringement of procedural fairness--Here breach had no impact on court's final conclusion--Even if court had heard all charges at same time and acquitted applicant for minor offences, he would still have been found guilty of serious offences on account of his admission he used insulting words and, despite circumstances, they were improper and inexcusable--Whether court committed error in assessing evidence on threat to commit assaults--Only objective aspect of threat to be proven-- Consequently, court did not have to analyze degree of fear felt by officer Généreux or evidence regarding applicant's intent in using words in question--Court's reasons indicated it considered both testimony of officer Généreux and of applicant, as well as content of offence reports, and came to conclusion words had in fact been used--Court in best position to assess evidence, indicated what it relied on in arriving at its conclusion and therefore no error committed-- Application for judicial review dismissed--Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620, s. 31(1)(a).