| Eight
penitentiary inmates, one from each of the eight penitentiaries in British
Columbia, sought judicial review of a decision of the CSC to implement
the Millennium Telephone System in the Pacific Region. Under the new system,
inmates would be unable to make local calls for free or for 25 cents per
call. Rather, the cost per local call would be between $1.75 and $2.75.
The court dealt with several issues: 1) Were the inmates barred from bringing
the application due to a violation of the 30 day time limit set out in
s18.1(2) of the Federal Court Act? 2) Did the implementation of the Millennium
system violate section
15 of the Charter in discriminating against the applicants
in general as prisoners, and specifically as prisoners from a lower social
economic background unable to afford the additional costs? 3) Did the
implementation of the Millennium system violate the applicant's right
to retain and instruct counsel without delay, contrary to section
10(b) of the Charter? 4) Did the implementation of the system
impede on the applicant's ability to make plans for release, thereby causing
them to spend a longer time in custody without due process contrary to
section 7 of the Charter? 5) Did the CSC fail to adhere to the requirements
of section 74 of the CCRA in failing to provide the inmates of the Pacific
Region with an opportunity to contribute to the decision to implement
the Millennium Telephone System? |
| In
dismissing the application, Richard A.C.J. began by holding that the inmates
were not barred by the 30-day time limit set out in s18.1(2) of the Federal
Court Act. While the filing of their originating notice of motion was
beyond the 30 day time limit, Richard A.C.J. nevertheless granted the
applicants an extension as they had demonstrated, by their grievances
and letters to the authorities, an intention to challenge the decision
to implement the system since they were first advised of the details of
it. There was an arguable case, and it was in the interests of justice
that an extension should be granted. In terms of the Constitutional arguments
put forth, Richard A.C.J. held that the implementation of the Millennium
Telephone System did not violate sections 7, 10(b) and 15 of the Charter.
With regard to section 7 of the Charter, the implementation of the system,
in itself, did not constitute a violation of section as the main issue
was based on an economic matter - the costs of local calls. It was far
from established whether a section 7 Charter right exists with respect
to economic rights fundamental to human life or survival. Furthermore,
the implementation of the system did not constitute a substantial change
in the conditions of detention. Richard A.C.J. held that there was nothing
in the decision to implement the system that necessitated a breach of
section 10(b). It was speculative to say that it would result in a breach
of such rights, and as well, there was a good deal of evidence that the
penitentiaries have put in place specific policies to assure the inmates
access to a telephone to protect his or her rights. Richard A.C.J. was
not persuaded that the applicants had been denied equal protection or
benefit under the law following section 15, and also held that inmates
do not constitute an analogous group under section 15 of the Charter.
Regarding section 74 of the CCRA, Richard A.C.J. asserted that the statutory
obligation to consult under this section is limited and does not apply
to decisions relating to security matters. The issue here related to security
matters, and in such circumstances, the CSC did not have an obligation
to consult the inmates before making the decision to implement the Millennium
Telephone System. Furthermore, it appeared on the evidence that the CSC
tried to involve the in inmates as much as possible, in the implementation
of the system, by consultation with the inmate committees in order to
determine the phone numbers to be included on the common access list.
It was also demonstrated before the court that the head of the inmate
committee had sent a letter to the authorities raising certain problems
and explaining their position regarding the implementation of the system
in the Pacific region. The evidence indicated that they received a response
from the CSC. |
TOP