| This was an application for judicial review of a decision by the CSC to reclassify and involuntarily transfer D on an emergency basis from a medium security institution to a maximum-security institution. D petitioned for habeas corpus with certiorari in aid, and sought an order for his release from confinement in a maximum-security penitentiary and transfer back to a medium security penitentiary. D was transferred on the suspicion that he was involved in the theft of a large quantity of tobacco from institutional stores at the institution, and on grounds that there was growing hostility towards D from the general population because of his alleged involvement in the theft. D was given a Notice of Involuntary Transfer and two Progress Summary Reports that stated the reasons for the transfer and pointed out that he had been implicated on the basis of “reliable information.” D’s representative requested on several occasions further details from the CSC contending that the information disclosed to D up until that point did not substantiate the allegations. The CSC made its final decision to uphold the transfer and wrote to D that no more details could be provided because of the necessity to protect the identity of their sources. The issue before the Court: Did the CSC disclose sufficient information to D as required by s27 of the CCRA? |
| In allowing the application, Collver J. concluded that D’s right to disclosure of information was violated in this case. Although the warden had the authority to withhold information from D in order to protect the safety of confidential informants, the amount of information that was, in fact, withheld was far more than what was “strictly necessary.” This was made clear from the documentation submitted to the court by the warden in defence of this application. These documents were considered by institutional staff in making their decisions on the security reclassification and involuntary transfer but were not previously disclosed to D. In submitting this documentation to the Court, the warden acknowledged that the documents had been edited so that as much information as possible was provided while protecting the identity of their sources. Collver J. asserted that these documents could have been provided to D (in edited form) without having jeopardized the safety of any of the informants. The non-disclosure of these documents impacted D’s ability to respond effectively to the decision to transfer him. D did not have a fair opportunity to challenge the substantive reasonableness of the CSC’s allegations. The order for D’s involuntary transfer was quashed. |
TOP
|