Canada ( Attorney General ) v. Lavoie
T-2420-97
Nadon J.
9/9/98
18 pp.
Judicial review of decision by Regional Safety Officer under Canada Labour Code, s. 146-Respondent correctional officer employed by Correctional Service working at Leclerc Institution in City of Laval-In 1997, respondent refusing to serve meal to two inmates in administrative segregation because other correctional officer not present to assist-Brought before Department of Labour safety officer on premises, latter finding "danger" within meaning of Code, s. 128(1)(b), but not "inherent danger" within meaning of s. 128(2)(b), and ordering employer to provide protection for persons against danger forthwith-Regional Safety Officer upholding decision-Application allowed-Real issue whether, when respondent to serve inmates' meals, such danger existed as would justify respondent's refusal to work-Similar decision examined by Public Service Staff Relations Board in Stephenson and Treasury Board (Solicitor General), [1991] P.S.S.R.B. No. 70 (QL), where Code held inappropriate means of dealing with health and safety concerns in correctional institutions-Under current system, danger must be actual and real, whereas in correctional institution, source of danger, inmate, has intelligence and free will-No danger in reality until moment inmate acts in manner endangering correctional officer-Decision since followed in Evans and Treasury Board (Solicitor General), [1991] P.S.S.R.B. No. 191 (QL)-Not within jurisdiction of safety officer or regional officer to determine whether procedure applicable to administrative segregation or some "special" procedure should apply to inmates Correctional Service has relocated, for lack of space in administrative segregation, to regular cell block-Similar considerations apply to inmates' security classification-No reason in case at bar, given inmates' record, for respondent to apprehend aggression by inmates-Risk faced by respondent nothing other than risk inherent in work, not justification under Code, s. 128(2)(b) for respondent's refusal to work-As stated in Stephenson and Evans, Code not appropriate vehicle for resolving such problems-Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2, ss. 128(1) (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 9, s. 4), (2) (as am. idem), 146 (as am. idem).