Caron v. Canada
T-1484-94
Nadon J.
15/7/99
22 pp.
Plaintiff, inmate, seeking damages for illegal detention-In October 1991 plaintiff transferred to Donnacona Penitentiary, maximum security penitentiary-On January 21, 1992 placed in administrative segregation for refusing to participate in institution's rehabilitation programs-Refusal based on fact most rehabilitation programs not working, waste of time, money for inmate, state-When not changing mind, management team deciding to release plaintiff from segregation into general population of section of institution reserved for "incompatibles"-Plaintiff refusing to return to that wing; insisting on return to former wing-Charged for refusal, condemned to 14 days of detention-Continued in administrative segregation until April 7, 1992 when returned to general population of former section as result of successful second-level grievance, memorandum from regional Deputy Commissioner-Institution selected by Correctional Service of Canada to implement strategic correctional plan as experimental project in fall of 1991-Policy to send inmates who refused to participate in rehabilitation programs to administrative segregation, and for continued refusal to section for "incompatibles"-Plaintiff must convince Court, on balance of probabilities, decisions to send him to administrative segregation on January 21, 1992, detain him until April 4, 1992 constituting negligence on part of defendant's servants-Court must decide whether decisions taken by authorities within discretion conferred upon them under Penitentiary Service Regulations, s. 40(1)(a), permitting institutional head to order inmate to be dissociated if satisfied necessary, desirable for maintenance of good order, discipline in institution, or in best interest of inmate-In Brandon v. Canada (Correctional Service) (1996), 131 D.L.R. (4th) 761 (F.C.T.D.), Gibson J. faced with action by inmate for damages resulting from false imprisonment-Holding no evidence leading to conclusion director could have been satisfied necessary, desirable plaintiff be dissociated from other inmates for maintenance of good order, discipline in institution-But sufficient evidence herein to satisfy warden necessary, desirable to dissociate plaintiff from other inmates-Plaintiff refused to have anything to do with rehabilitation programs-Institution's mandate, conferred by Correctional Service of Canada, to implement as soon as practicable, correctional strategy-Great efforts made to devise, implement correctional strategy, ultimate purpose of which to reintegrate inmates into society-When case workers attempted to meet plaintiff to discuss, implement possible correctional plan tailored to his needs, plaintiff flatly refused to even meet with them-Simply not interested in rehabilitation-Faced with plaintiff's complete refusal, authorities decided, for maintenance of good order, discipline of institution, steps had to be taken-Did so by segregating plaintiff-Maintenance of good order, discipline in institution including proper administration, implementation of strategic correctional plan-To allow inmate to decide as pleases not acceptable position-Plaintiff had no choice but to participate in rehabilitation programs and, at least meet with case workers to discuss possible rehabilitation program designed for his needs-Authorities not negligent in decision-Correctional plan clearly providing inmate who refused to participate in rehabilitation programs would be sent to "incompatibles" section-Plaintiff not wanting to go there because designed for inmates who had done something requiring their protection from general population-Feared inmates of former section would be suspicious of him, attempt to hurt him after sent there-That plaintiff's grievance upheld not helping him-Succeeded on grievance because persons in authority above institutional head, decided correctional plan, strategy should be revised, and decided in circumstances, plaintiff entitled to payment of wages lost during period of segregation-Also decided to cancel offence with which charged by reason of refusal to go to "incompatibles" section-On evidence, warden, those in authority in plaintiff's section, not acting in negligent way when decided to segregate plaintiff, send him to "incompatibles" section-Decisions justified under Penitentiary Service Regulations, s. 40(1)(a)-Action dismissed-Penitentiary Service Regulations, C.R.C., c. 1251, s. 40(1)(a).