Penitentiaries
Appeal from Federal Court (F.C.) decision dismissing appellants’ applications for judicial review challenging legality, constitutionality of Correctional Service of Canada Commissioner’s Directive 730, Correctional Service of Canada Commissioner’s Directive 860 (Directives), amendments to Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620 (Regulations) — Until 1981, remunerations received by inmates for work considered reward for good behaviour — With passage of Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20 (Act), Parliament choosing to change philosophy relative to payment of offenders — Payment of inmates incentive to encourage offenders to meet objectives of correctional plan — Act, s. 78(2) providing that Correctional Service of Canada (Service) may make deductions, require payments — Regulations, s. 104.1(2) setting out potential uses of those deductions — Directives setting out details of inmates’ remuneration regime — Amendments to Regulations, Directives reducing payments available to inmates — Appellants arguing Regulations, Directives ultra vires Act, contrary to Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter), ss. 7, 12 — Also arguing employer-employee relationship existing between inmates, Service, therefore reduction in payment “constructive dismissal” within meaning of Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2 (Code) — F.C. concluding regulatory instruments adopted “in strict accordance” with Act, s. 78 not ultra vires, that payments in issue, reductions, not cruel, unusual treatment within meaning of Charter, s. 12 — Not satisfied impugned measures engaging interest protected by Charter, s. 7 — Whether amendments to Regulations, Directives violating Charter, s. 7; whether amendments invalid because contrary to UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, Art. 76, International Labour Organization’s Forced Labour Convention,, 1930 (No. 29); whether employer-employee relationship existing between appellants, Service — F.C. correctly finding that appellants failing to show how impugned measures breaching principles of fundamental justice — Appellants not seeking invalidation of state action infringing exercise of Charter right, rather arguing right to security imposing positive economic obligations on state — Canadian courts never going so far, systematically refusing to impose such economic obligations on state — Supreme Court in Gosselin v. Québec (Attorney General), 2002 SCC 84, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 429 rather appearing to militate against positive state obligation to protect life, liberty, security of person through economic measures — Appellants’ situation not sufficiently different from recipients of social assistance in Gosselin to justify making other finding — F.C. correctly dismissing appellants’ claims based on public international law — Minimum Rules at most providing for “equitable” remuneration of prisoners’ work without further elaboration, not imposing obligation on signatory countries, not containing any binding mechanism — Convention on Forced Labour excluding “any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law” — Act, s. 78(2) not ambiguous, international instruments therefore of no assistance in clarifying meaning, even less so in changing scope — F.C. not erring in finding appellants failing to establish employer-employee relationship resulting from participation in programs made available by Service — Should have declined ruling on issue of applying Code, given appellants not having exhausted administrative remedies — Even supposing Code applying, appellants should have proceeded by way of wage recovery complaint — Appellants, even to extent considered employees, excluded from Part III of Code — As to whether appellants considered as having employer-employee relationship under common law, appellants should have proceeded by way of action under Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 17 — Contract law governing Crown’s relationship with employees — Accordingly, F.C. not having jurisdiction to deal with issue in application for judicial review — Actual purpose of programs offered by Service rehabilitation, not employment — Act, s. 78(1) only authorizing Commissioner to pay inmates to encourage participation in programs offered by Service or provide specific financial assistance — No mention of compensation for work performed — Differing criteria used for determining inmates’ payment level, salary normally paid to workers — Appeal dismissed.
Guérin v. Canada (Attorney General) (A-75-18, 2019 FCA 272, de Montigny J.A., reasons for judgment dated November 4, 2019, 32 pp.)