| The applicant A was involuntarily transferred from medium security to maximum on the basis of information received that he intended to escape. Approximately six months prior, A had escaped during an escorted temporary absence and was arrested sixty-seven days later. In respect to the alleged escape plans at issue, A’s case management team provided him with an Assessment for Decision that set out the reasons for the involuntary transfer recommendation. The document highlighted A’s “long institutional and criminal record” and made clear that it was the information relating to the escape plans that constituted the basis for the transfer. The only information disclosed regarding the alleged escape plan was the following: “On 1999-09-14, we received information from a police source (SPCUM) that Gilles Ayotte was planning to escape. The source is considered very reliable.” The issue: Was the disclosure provided to the applicant sufficient for him to make representations for the purpose of refuting the allegations made against him? |
| In dismissing A’s application for judicial review, Dubé J. relied upon Gallant v. Canada, [1989] 3 F.C. 329 (C.A.), to distinguish this case from the ruling in Demaria v. Regional Classification Board, [1987] 1 F.C. 74. Dubé J. asserts that A’s transfer, as in Gallant, was initiated on the basis that it was necessary for the proper functioning of the institution and was not a decision, like Demaria, contemplating a sanction or punishment as a result of an offence. Citing Marceau J.A. in Gallant, Dubé J. claimed that procedural fairness does not require that the applicant have as many particulars as in the case of a disciplinary charge. |
TOP
|