PAROLE |
Laplante v. Canada (Attorney General)
T-2363-00
2002 FCT 896, Beaudry J.
22/8/02
12 pp.
Judicial review of decision of Chairperson of Disciplinary Board sentencing applicant to five days' disciplinary detention with loss of privileges, because refused to return to general inmate population--In penal institution, inmate may be placed in administrative segregation under Corrections and Conditional Release Act, s. 31(3)--Applicant arguing Chairperson's decision patently unreasonable because staff member's order not legitimate, not meeting criteria of Act, s. 40(a)--Applicant contending staff member who wrote offence report not complying with obligation under Act, s. 41(1) to attempt to resolve matter informally--Order to leave segregation normally valid order--No evidence of bad faith on part of CSC staff member, and since applicant refused to explain why wanted to remain in segregation, no evidence of subjective fear on his part--Applicant not having right to freely choose where lives within penitentiary-- Refusal to comply with order to leave administrative segregation offence under Act, s. 40(a)--Act, s. 41(1) specifying "shall" after "has committed a disciplinary offence" mandatory provision-- Given that dealing with statute, Chairperson of Disciplinary Board should have dismissed offence or found applicant not guilty of offence-- No evidence of any attempt whatsoever to resolve matter informally as set out in Act, s. 41(1)--Since this obligation question of law, can be raised at any time by applicant-- Accordingly, decision set aside, Chairperson of Disciplinary Board at Donnacona should have made inquiries whether steps had in fact been taken to resolve matter informally or, at very least, whether particular circumstances prevented such steps from being taken-- Application allowed--Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, ss. 31, 40, 41.