|
The applicant G sought judicial review of a decision of the Regional Transfer
Board approving his involuntary transfer from a medium to a maximum-security
institution. G grieved the decision and also sought judicial review. The
issue dealt with by the Court was whether the grievance procedure provided
for under the CCRA and Regulations is an adequate alternative remedy that
should be exhausted before judicial review is sought. G submitted that
the grievance procedure was not an adequate alternative remedy because
of s81(1) of the Regulations. Section 81(1) provides that where an offender
decides to file a judicial review application, the grievance shall be
deferred until a decision on the judicial review is rendered. In dismissing
G’s application, Rothstein J. stipulated that on its face, the legislative
scheme providing for grievances is an adequate alternate remedy to judicial
review. As for s81(1) of the Regulations, Rothstein J. contended that
judicial review is a discretionary remedy and the court cannot be precluded
from determining that an adequate alternate remedy exists simply because
an applicant has filed a judicial review application. Section 81(1) of
the Regulations is not intended to detract from the court’s discretion
in this respect. Moreover, s81(1) does not act as a bar to the grievance
proceeding should the court find that procedure to be an adequate alternative
remedy. |
TOP