|
Upon receiving a three year prison sentence the applicant inmate B was taken to the Regional Reception Centre (RRC) for his intake assessment and correctional planning to arrive at a recommendation on his security rating and initial placement. On December 14, 1999, parole officer D recommended a minimum security rating and placement in the Federal Training Centre, a minimum security penitentiary. D also found B eligible for the accelerated parole review (APR). On December 20, 1999, the Regional Sentence Administrator, after consulting with the National Sentence Administrator, informed D that following a review of B's file by the CSC, and in particular after reviewing and analysing the transcript of his sentencing hearing, B could not benefit from the APR as the evidence indicated that B had strong ties to organized crime. In light of these facts, the Deputy Director of the RRC requested a new placement recommendation in accordance with the assessment filed for the security rating. As a result, on December 23, 1999, B's security rating was re-evaluated by D and on this occasion B was given a medium security rating and his placement in the Archambault Institution was recommended. B sought to challenge the decision to give him a medium security rating and the order given by the RRC Director that he be placed in a medium security institution, Archambault, by way of judicial review. The essential issue before the Court: Did B have the right to have his case dealt with given that he did not make prior use of the grievance procedure laid out in the CCRA?
|
|
Lemieux J. dismissed the application for judicial review. In support of his argument that the inmate's application for judicial review should be dismissed on the ground that he did not make use of the grievance system, the Attorney General of Canada cited the judgment of Giesbrecht v. Canada, [1998] F.C.J. No. 621, Anderson v. Canada (Armed Forces), [1997] 1 F.C. 273 (C.A.), and St-Amand v. Canada (Attorney General) (2000), 147 C.C.C. (3d) 48 (Que.C.A.). B cited Marachelian v. Canada (Attorney General), [2000] F.C.J. No.1128 (F.C.T.D.) and the comments of Arbour J. in her report of the Commission of Inquiry Into Certain Events Occurring at the Prison for Women in Kingston. Lemieux J. noted that Marachelian endorsed the rule that other remedies should be exhausted but made an exception that did not apply in this case. Further, Lemieux J. noted that in her inquiry report Arbour J. warned that she did not have sufficient information to formulate comments on the grievance resolution procedure and grievances in the Correctional Service in general. Giesbrecht and St-Amand held that the grievance system laid down in the Act, the Regulations, CD No. 540 and the SOPs are an adequate statutory procedure which must be exhausted before initiating an application for judicial review when the question is one relating to a security rating or placement. Lemieux J. found that the circumstances in St-Amand were identical to those of the case at bar and came to the conclusion that the application for judicial review must be dismissed because it did not comply with the rule that other remedies must be exhausted.
|
TOP