PENITENTIARIES |
Royer v. Canada (Attorney General)
T-634-01
2001 FCT 1359, Rouleau J.
12/12/01
13 pp.
Application for judicial review of decision made by Chairperson of Drummond Institution disciplinary court finding plaintiff guilty of disciplinary offence of refusing several times to submit to urinalyses requested--Request made following conviction for taking intoxicating substance into his body and required to provide urine sample each month until gave three consecutive negative monthly samples--Application dismissed--Fact inmate offence reports and notice of charge indicated Corrections and Conditional Release Act, s. 40(l) rather than s. 40(k) did not vitiate Chairperson's decision, since plaintiff knew charge against him and suffered no harm thereby: Opponechaw v. Stony Mountain Institution (1996), 115 F.T.R. 229 (F.C.T.D.)--Phrase "each month" contained in Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, s. 71 simply meant urinalysis requests should be made in consecutive months, not necessarily that interval between each request should be 30 days--Regulations, s. 31 validly adopted by Governor in Council pursuant to Act, s. 96(m) and consequence of positive urinalysis result--S. 71 in no way ultra vires Act--Nothing in Act specifically prohibits adoption of such regulation--Urinalyses requested under s. 71 administrative measure available to prison authorities to counter and control drug use by inmates in penitentiaries, not disciplinary penalty--Consequently, Regulations, s. 71 entirely consistent with Act and enabling provision--In view of nature and seriousness of problem and importance of sound administration of corrections system, Act, s. 96(m) permits adoption of regulations giving corrections officers power to require inmate to submit to urinalyses in certain very specific circumstances--No breach of Charter, s. 8 since as urine sample never provided, there was no wrongful search: Picard v. Drummond Institution (1995), 107 F.T.R. 1 (F.C.T.D.)--In penal institution, inmate's expectation of privacy from search and surveillance almost nil--Search in case at bar not wrongful invasion of that right to privacy--Since random selection process which authorized taking, pursuant to Act, s. 54(d), of urine sample which led to subsequent urinalysis requests pursuant to Regulations, s. 71 constitutionally valid, neither Regulations, s. 71, nor implementation in case at bar contravened Charter, s. 8--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. 8--Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1982, c. 20, ss. 40, 54(b), 96(m) (am. by S.C. 1995, c. 42, ss. 25, 72)--Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620, s. 71.