Coumont v. Canada
T-1889-92
Denault J.
9/5/94
19 pp.
Action for damages arising from alleged negligence of correctional officials-Plaintiff proceeding to Living Unit at Matsqui Institution when stabbed by fellow inmate, ex-husband of applicant's girlfriend-Refusing to identify assailant so as not to break "con code"-Most inmates at bottom of hierarchy in protective custody-Once in protective custody unlikely to be able to return to general population without incident-Concerning stabbing, alleging negligence in placing applicant in same institution as incompatible inmate, in not properly operating surveillance camera in area of assault-Normal procedure upon arrival at institution to ask inmate if any known incompatibles in institution-Upon arrival at Matsqui no one asking plaintiff about any incompatibles at Institution-Not volunteering information as felt had nothing to fear from assailant-Security profile not revealing incompatibles-Inquiries by inmate recently released from segregation as to arrival of new inmates during morning prior to stabbing reported-Normal for plaintiff to have been quickly processed, placed directly in general population since plaintiff familiar with prison system-After stabbing plaintiff transferred to Mission Institution, assailant, to Kent Institution, maximum security institution-One year later when advised under active transfer consideration because of institutional offences, plaintiff informing Institutional Preventive Security Officer of incompatible at Kent, but indicating would not take protective custody-Upon arrival at Kent threatened by fellow inmates, placed in administrative segregation at own request-Plaintiff neither asked nor volunteering information about incompatibles prior to request to be placed in segregation-Two months later requesting transfer to protective custody-Alleging actions of correctional officials resulting in placement in protective custody, fall to bottom of prison hierarchy, requiring continuing protective custody for own protection-Seeking general damages for pain, suffering in relation to stabbing, compensatory general damages in relation to loss of liberty in protective custody, aggravated general damages in relation to loss of dignity suffered when placed in protective custody, punitive damages for wanton, willful disregard of correctional officials for liberty-Action dismissed-Duty of prison officials to take reasonable care for inmate's safety, including obligation to take reasonable steps to protect inmate from fellow inmates-In relation to stabbing incident, no officials at Matsqui having actual knowledge of incompatible prior to stabbing-Unreasonable to find breach of duty of care in correctional officials' failure to take account of inmate's questions about incoming inmates as vague and could have related to any of inmates-Correctional officials exercised reasonable care in conducting security profile on inmate prior to releasing him into general population-While specific enquiries of plaintiff upon arrival desirable, not necessary where plaintiff known to officials, familiar with correctional system-Reasonable to assume had plaintiff been aware of problem and willing to inform them of it, would have done so-Even if asked plaintiff would have denied incompatibles in institution because unaware of assailant's intentions, would have refused to identify him because of "con code"-Correctional officials having neither actual nor imputed knowledge of incompatible to plaintiff in Matsqui prior to stabbing-As to general duty to protect, plaintiff not establishing installation, operation of video cameras would have prevented stabbing-Concerning involuntary transfer from Mission to Kent, correctional officials having duty to have regard to fact inmate at Kent who might be incompatible with plaintiff when deciding to transfer him there, and to inform officials at Kent of potential problem-Mission officials meeting obligations-Potential problem at Kent with incompatible, whom plaintiff continuing to refuse to identify by name, considered by Mission officer in transfer recommendation-Informed counterpart at Kent of potential problem-That officer only person at Kent with actual knowledge of incompatible-Absent from institution when plaintiff arrived-As reasonably foreseeable plaintiff might be harmed by assailant, officer having duty to ensure plaintiff's protection by conveying information to officials in A & D area prior to plaintiff's arrival-Despite omission to forward information to officials in A & D area, Crown not liable as no injury, causal link unclear, plaintiff voluntarily entering general population, giving rise to defence of volenti non fit injuria-Plaintiff not suffering injury as direct result of being placed in general population: threatened and immediately sought and provided protection-Possibly placement in administrative segregation, protective custody injurious, but decisions not direct result of officer's omission-Even if officials in A & D area forewarned and asked plaintiff about incompatible, plaintiff would likely have refused to identify assailant and would probably have chosen to be placed in general population-Plaintiff failing to demonstrate link between now known incompatibility with assailant and threats-Voluntarily assumed risk of injury when entered general population-Plaintiff knowing assailant at Kent, perceiving potential problem, but choosing to enter general population, deal with problem because of likely consequences of choosing protective custody imposed by "con code"-No breach in relation to decisions to place plaintiff in administrative segregation and to continue holding him there-Correctional officials had statutory authority to make these decisions: Penitentiary Service Regulations, s. 40(1)-Determination not whether decision correct, but whether negligent-Plaintiff's decision to enter administrative segregation-Continued detention there result of refusal to enter protective custody-Correctional officials not negligent in efforts to protect plaintiff by keeping him in administrative segregation-Complaint based on plaintiff's belief options at Kent so limited had no choice but to enter protective custody, suffer consequences imposed because of "con code"-Case law indicating decision to provide three types of custody (segregation, protective custody, general population) characterized as "true policy decision" and immune from application of negligence law: Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228-Crown Liability Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-50, ss. 3, 10-Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, ss. 17 (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 3), 18.1(3) (as am. idem, s. 5)-Penitentiary Service Regulations, C.R.C., c. 1251, s. 40(1).