PENITENTIARIES |
McGahey v. Canada (Joyceville Penitentiary)
T-2345-00
2002 FCT 966, Gibson J.
19/9/02
13 pp.
Judicial review of decision by Visitor Review Board to suspend applicant's visiting privileges at Joyceville Penitentiary--Applicant's husband inmate at Joyceville Institution, penitentiary in region of Kingston, Ontario, operated by Correctional Service of Canada-- Undergoing long term of imprisonment--On September 30, 2000, applicant, daughter went to Joyceville Institution to visit husband--"Drug sniffing" dog utilized in Joyceville Institution that day--Applicant advised supervising Correctional Officer had reason to believe she had drugs in possession, had come into contact with drugs--Ordered to leave Institution--Neither applicant nor husband given notice risk assessment being conducted, provided with copy of risk assessment, provided opportunity to respond to it--Neither applicant nor husband provided hearing, opportunity to make written representations in course of process leading up to decision under review--Decision under review "correctional decision" within ambit of Corrections and Conditional Release Act, s. 4(g) to be made in forthright, fair manner--Act, s. 71(1) providing privilege to visitors, that is to visit correctional institutions generally closed to public-- Applicant's husband had no opportunity to record "clear objection" to decision under consideration to suspend applicant's visiting rights, privileges, rights to receive visits from close family member--Applicant had standing to bring application for judicial review--Direct impact of decision under review has long since expired since decision dated October 11, 2000 to suspend applicant's visiting privileges for period of 30 days following events of September 30, 2000-- On application for judicial review, no "live controversy" continued on day application heard-- Respondents failed in duty of sensitivity implicit in provisions of Corrections and Conditional Release Act, ss. 3, 4 both to applicant, husband-- Complete absence on part of respondents of semblance of fairness in considering, eventually determining, to suspend applicant's visiting privileges for period of 30 days--No opportunity to respond to recommendation provided--No opportunity to be heard provided to applicant, husband-- Respondents failed in duty to applicant, husband to act fairly in arriving at decision to suspend applicant's visiting privileges--But for fact decision under review clearly moot, Court would have set aside decision--Application dismissed --Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, ss. 3, 4, 71.