Forrest v. Canada
(Solicitor General)

(1998), 154 F.T.R. 22, [1998] F.C.J. No.1483 (F.C.T.D.)

     The applicant F sought judicial review of three separate decisions made by the CSC. These decisions were: 1) a denial of private family visits; 2) an involuntary transfer from medium to maximum security; and 3) a denial of a voluntary transfer request from maximum back down to medium security. The involuntary transfer was initiated on the basis of information indicating that F was responsible for the stabbing of another inmate and that he regularly carried a weapon. The issues before the Court stem from F’s assertion that the decisions violated his rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. F argued a s15 violation on the grounds that the decisions resulted from systemic discrimination and targeting on the basis of race and membership in a group of black inmates. F asserted that the involuntary transfer amounted to a violation of s7 in that he was not provided with full disclosure of information, that there apparently was competing evidence suggesting that he was innocent of the stabbing which officials failed to investigate, and that he was denied an oral hearing in order to challenge the credibility of those inmates naming him as the culprit in the stabbing. In terms of the denial of the voluntary transfer request, F argued a violation of fundamental justice in several respects.
    In reviewing the issues and facts, MacKay J. dismissed the application. There was no evidence of bad faith. There was no evidence to support a conclusion that there was different treatment of the applicant or that he was discriminated against on the basis of some enumerated or analogous ground under s15. In terms of the involuntary transfer, MacKay J. concluded that there was sufficient information available to the applicant and sufficient opportunity for him to make representations before the transfer decision was made. MacKay J. found that there were grounds upon which the prison officials could reasonably determine to transfer F. Furthermore, the CCR Regulations do not infringe s7 of the Charter by permitting transfers without a prior oral hearing. The absence of a hearing in this case did not violate the s7 rights of the applicant. Regarding the denial of the request for voluntary transfer from maximum to medium security, F was informed of the decision, provided with written reasons and informed about his right to invoke the internal inmate grievance process. Here, there is no requirement that the applicant be given an opportunity to respond to comments of the decision-maker, other than filing a grievance. In this case, F did not avail himself of the opportunity to file a grievance on this matter, and as a consequence, the application for judicial review of the denial to allow the voluntary transfer was premature.
TOP