Prosyk v. Canada ( National Parole Board )
T-1716-93
Nadon J.
2/12/93
10 pp.
Application for judicial review of National Parole Board's refusal to consider applicant for accelerated parole review -- Applicant sentenced to 2 years for impaired driving causing death -- Appearing before Board on February 11 and granted day parole to commence March 28 -- On April 27 pleaded guilty to possession of narcotics in relation to offence committed March 2 and sentenced to 7 days -- Day parole cancelled as result of conviction and sentence -- Applicant's case for accelerated parole review referred to Board pursuant to Corrections and Conditional Release Act, s. 125 -- Ss. 125, 126 applying to offender sentenced to penitentiary for first time -- S. 126 providing if no reasonable grounds to believe offender, if released, likely to commit violent offence before expiration of sentence, Board shall direct offender be released on full parole -- Criminal Code, s. 731(2) providing where person sentenced to imprisonment in penitentiary, and before expiration of that sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for less than two years, shall be sentenced to and serve that term in penitentiary -- Application dismissed -- Although penal statutes generally interpreted strictly, and ambiguities interpreted in favour of those liable to penalty, important to distinguish denial affecting expectation of enjoyment of anticipated privilege of liberty (i.e. grant of parole, unescorted temporary absences) from deprivation of some right of liberty presently existing or enjoyed (initial incarceration or where parole, already granted, revoked) -- Argument for strict interpretation attenuated under former circumstances -- Interpretation Act, s. 15 requiring all statutes receive "fair, large and liberal construction" -- While s. 731(2) enacted in part to distinguish between instances where person must serve time in penitentiary versus provincial reformatory, primarily addresses consequences of being sentenced to less than 2 years while serving existing sentence in penitentiary -- Subsequent sentence not part of first, but mutually exclusive entity -- S. 731(2) bolstering respondent's case applicant sentenced to penitentiary for second time upon conviction for narcotics offence -- Purposive method of statutory interpretation yielding same result -- Accelerated review envisaged as expedited process, applying only to offenders representing slightest threat to society: first-time non-violent offenders -- To allow person who showed "unbelievably poor judgment" in being involved in drugs after positive Board decision while awaiting release to be entitled to accelerated review process would defeat purpose of Act -- S. 139 providing where person sentenced to term of imprisonment that has not expired sentenced to additional term of imprisonment, person deemed sentenced to one term of imprisonment -- Applicant arguing concurrent sentence for possession of narcotics part of first sentence -- Pask v. R., T-2990-83, Muldoon J., judgment dated 23/5/84, F.C.T.D., not reported, distinguished -- S. 139(1) must be interpreted so as to provide for "one total term of imprisonment" for potential plurality of sentences -- Otherwise any non-violent repeat offender would be considered for accelerated parole contrary to purpose thereof -- Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, ss. 2(1), 119, 120, 122, 123, 125, 126, 139 -- Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 731(2) -- Interpretation Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21, s. 15 -- Parole Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-2.