Crawford v. William
Head Penitentiary

(1992), 56 F.T.R. 32, [1992] 3 F.C. 539 (F.C.T.D.)

    Two inmates were directed by order of a penitentiary officer to submit to being photographed by means of computerized photographic identification equipment, known as the image capture system, a system that was being evaluated through a pilot project at the institution. Inmates were to be photographed by a video camera on videotape and a computer would then scan the photographic image, code the information and store it in a database. Thereafter, a colour video printer would print the photograph of inmates on film. After refusing the order, both inmates were charged with a disciplinary offence contrary to section 39(a) of the Penitentiary Service Regulations, for failure to obey a lawful order. Both being found guilty by the disciplinary court, each was ordered to pay a $10 fine. The inmates applied for judicial review. The question of whether or not the video capture system employed in the institution was authorized by law was a central issue before the Court. The Federal Court also touched upon the issue of whether simply initiating proceedings in the Court could and should result in the suspension of disciplinary court proceedings pending a decision of the Federal Court.
    MacKay J. dismissed the application for judicial review. MacKay J. found that section 2 of the Identification of Criminals Act and an order-in-council pursuant to that Act authorized the use of the system. Furthermore, the use of such a system did not violate the inmates' section 7 Charter rights. While it was not set out as a ground for relief in relation to the disciplinary court conviction in this decision, MacKay J. indicated that there appeared to be a perception that simply initiating proceedings in Federal Court should result in suspension of other proceedings, pending a decision of the Federal Court. While each board or authority must assess its own basis for proceeding when the basis of those proceedings are questioned by application to the Federal Court, it was noted that the Federal Court itself does not readily intervene to grant an application to stay other proceedings, though it has jurisdiction to do so.
TOP