PAROLE |
Conille v. Canada (Attorney General)
T-258-02
2003 FCT 613, Blanchard J.
16/5/03
13 pp.
Judicial review of National Parole Board's (the Board) decision denying applicant's application for pardon filed pursuant to Criminal Records Act--While application, filed in April 1999, being processed, RCMP informed Board applicant number one suspect in murder case in City of Laval in 1994--Applicant not notified of this--In November 2000, Board notified applicant that because of considerable number of active files, his application could not be processed on urgent basis--In April 2001, after many requests for information, RCMP confirmed to applicant that was still considered main suspect in murder case and that was currently under investigation--In June 2001, Board informed applicant it was proposing that his pardon be denied on ground that, because RCMP had confirmed still suspect, it could not find applicant met criterion for good conduct needed to grant him pardon--Board delivered its decision refusing application for pardon in January 2002--Application dismissed--Applicable standard of review that of patently unreasonable error on question of fact--Board did not err in appropriate interpretation of Criminal Records Act, s. 4(a) concerning five-year period and concept of good conduct--S. 4.1(1) expressly providing that Board may grant pardon when convinced, during five-year period, of applicant's good conduct--Board not only took into account five-year period following sentence, but also considered some positive factors applicant put before it, including good conduct since conviction--Notion of good conduct should be envisaged not simply from standpoint of morale, but rather comprehensively --Given information from RCMP that applicant not of good conduct since police considered him prime suspect in murder case, not patently unreasonable for Board to conclude accordingly--By accepting information from RCMP, Board did not decline to exercise jurisdiction--Board drew own conclusions after analyzing facts, and made decision not to grant applicant requested pardon--Board did not violate applicant's presumption of innocence by presuming police information trustworthy--Presumption of innocence not applicable in context of administrative proceeding such as application for pardon--Grant of pardon discretionary-- Board did not demonstrate bad faith in processing of applicant's file--Delays explained, explicable--Board did not have to provide access to body of case law of Board since such information not accessible to public--Criminal Records Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-47, s. 4(a).