| In the midst of a criminal proceeding, F was transferred back to a penitentiary from a city pre-trial centre at the conclusion of his preliminary inquiry. There, F had been placed in administrative segregation on the grounds that prison authorities had received confidential information indicating that he was involved in certain activities. The reasons for segregation provided to F were: "You are a suspect to pressuring, through threats of violence and intimidation, other inmates and members of their families to purchase narcotics in the community and have it introduced into the Institution. Therefore, as a possible threat to the safety of other inmates and citizens in the community, you will be held in segregation pending an investigation of these allegations by the CSC and RCMP." In applying for judicial review, F claimed that these reasons provided to him constituted insufficient disclosure of information violating s7 of the Charter, the principles of natural justice and the duty to act fairly. |
| Walsh D.J. dismissed the application. Prison authorities did not violate the duty to act fairly in refusing to disclose all relevant information. Walsh D.J. held that it was not unreasonable for the prison authorities to take F's past history and record (which consisted of a lengthy criminal record including escaping from custody) into consideration in making these administrative decisions. Walsh D.J. relied on the decision of Gallant v. Correctional Service of Canada (Pacific Region)(1989), 68 C.R. (3d) 173 (F.C.A.). Walsh D.J. held that on the basis of the facts outlined in this case and the jurisprudence referred to, there was no breach of fairness in the segregation of F. Walsh D.J. asserted that it would be unwise and perhaps even dangerous to reveal any more information to the inmate as to the identity of the informants although we are not here dealing with a single allegation made against F but with a multiplicity of information of one sort or another obtained from a variety of sources indicating the desirability of keeping him in segregation for a relatively short period before he will be released under mandatory supervision to the provincial authorities, but still not freed from custody to await his trial. |
TOP
|