Forrest v. Canada
(Attorney General)

[2002] F.C.J. No.713, 2002 FCT 539 (F.C.T.D.)

    F was provided with a written demand by a correctional officer to provide a urine sample as part of the prescribed random selection urinalysis program under section 54(b) of the CCRA. Disagreeing with the length of the interval since his last urine sample, the inmate demanded to speak to a supervisor of the correctional officer. The correctional officer informed him that he did not have the right to refuse to provide a urine sample and that he did not have the right to make any representations. F stated that if he were not allowed to speak to someone, then he would refuse to provide the urine sample. F was not permitted to make representations and refused to provide a sample, for which he was charged and convicted of a disciplinary offence. The correctional officer's decision in this regard was part of a challenge to a disciplinary conviction that arose out of F's refusal to provide the urine sample.
    The application was dismissed. Kelen J. wrote that Parliament has enacted in section 54 of the Act a variety of circumstances when an inmate is legally required to provide a urine sample upon demand. One situation, under section 54(b) of the Act, involves demands upon a random basis. A computer generates a random selection of inmates at each institution, and these inmates are required to submit a urine sample. The objective is to detect, prevent and deter drug use by inmates at correctional institutions. The inmate has no right to refuse when selected on a random basis. Refusal to provide a urine sample when demanded constitutes a specific disciplinary offence under subsection 40(l) of the Act. This is distinct from instances under section 54(a) of the Act where inmates are requested to provide a urine sample because the institution has reasonable grounds to suspect that the inmate has used a drug. In such situations, the inmate has the right to make representations before being required to submit the urine sample. That right to make representations is contained in section 57 of the Act. On the facts of this case, Kelen J. found that where a random urinalysis sample has been demanded under subsection 54(b) of the Act, no right to address a superior institution officer exists. Accordingly, Kelen J. was satisfied that the disciplinary court came to a reasonable finding that the inmate did refuse to provide the urine sample contrary to subsection 54(b) of the Act.
TOP