Kempton v. Canada ( National Parole Board )
T-2409-91
Simpson J.
8/12/94
13 pp.
Appeal from National Parole Board (NPB) decision to terminate plaintiff's day parole-Issue degree of disclosure to be made to offender at NPB post-suspension hearing-Plaintiff serving life sentence for armed robbery and forcible confinement-Plaintiff granted day parole to only halfway house ("House") available to him on condition he seek and maintain steady employment-House, independent of NPB, having power to accept only those meeting its assessment criteria and to evict offender at any time-Following brief employment at location considered inappropriate due to dealings in stolen property, plaintiff sustaining minor back injuries hampering his ability to work-After recovering from injury, plaintiff spending prolonged periods of unaccountable time and subject of police inquires as to whereabouts-House evicting plaintiff on ground of failure to pursue employment-House director providing NPB with confidential report alleging involvement in criminal activity-NPB hearing not raising two of eight issues contained in confidential report: plaintiff's involvement in break-ins and possession of stolen goods-In rendering decision, NPB assuring plaintiff not suspected of involvement in criminal activity-Plaintiff claiming (1) unmentioned allegations in confidential report true rationale for termination decision; and (2) NPB failure to raise issues breaching Charter, s. 7 right to fundamental justice-Judge finding plaintiff's parole would have been terminated in absence of unmentioned allegations; and, following eviction from House, NPB having no choice but to terminate plaintiff's day parole for lack of community residency-Decision to terminate parole on ground of failure to seek employment completely reasonable based on evidence-Use of term "termination" as opposed to "revocation" indicating lack of fault on the part of plaintiff for parole failure-Procedure employed by NPB "fundamentally just", as required by Howard v. Stony Mountain Institution, [1984] 2 F.C. 642 (C.A.)-NPB entitled to define case against plaintiff and not obliged to raise unmentioned allegations where not forming part of case-No denial of s. 7 rights as plaintiff had opportunity to make full response and decision based on matters raised-Appeal dismissed-Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44], s. 7.