PAROLE
Judicial review of National Parole Board Appeal Division decision supporting ongoing, continuing detention of applicant until expiry of sentence—Applicant sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment for robbery, 6 years, concurrent, for manslaughter—Applicant’s statutory release date November 5, 2004, warrant expiry date March 6, 2010—National Parole Board, Trial Division satisfied that if released on statutory date, applicant likely to commit offence causing serious harm—Denial of statutory release affirmed by Appeal Division—Review procedure followed by Board inquisitorial in nature—Procedural fairness not breached—Applicant given opportunity to provide own evidence, answer Board’s questions, ask questions himself—Board treating evidence, persons before it fairly, equally—Criteria to be considered by Board in determining statutory release where person convicted of offence causing death or serious harm set out in Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), s. 132(1) —Conclusion Board conducted fair assessment not reviewable error—All criteria considered, none given undue, unbalanced consideration—As to applicant’s argument cannot be treated as member of criminal organization unless convicted, decision cited in support (Coscia v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 257 F.T.R. 101 (F.C.)) not applicable in light of F.C.A. decision ([2006] 1 F.C.R. 430) criticizing Federal Court conclusion in this regard—Coscia also distinguished as dealing with parole, not release upon expiry of statutory term under CCRA, s. 132(1)—Board could consider possible association with a group in case at bar, whether or not group was “criminal organization”—Conviction irrelevant to considerations under s. 132(1)—Application dismissed— Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, s. 132(1) (as am. by S.C. 1995, c. 42, s. 47).
Yaari v. Canada (Attorney General) (T‑1969‑04, 2005 FC 1353, Hughes J., order dated 3/10/05, 16 pp.)