|
Pinard J. held that the documentary evidence, which was laid out in some detail in the judgment, demonstrates that the applicant received the information necessary to submit his various grievances. As well, although certain documents refer to confidential information that for “obvious” reasons were not shared with G, the information given to him was nonetheless sufficient as he was given the gist of the reasons for all the decisions relating to him. As to G’s argument that his representations were not properly considered, Pinard J. stipulated that the applicant had a duty to show that the CSC did not consider all the evidence before it, including any representations made. On the facts in this case, it was not in dispute that G had an opportunity before each decision to make full representations, and that he made use of that opportunity. Also, each decision expressly mentioned that G’s representations were taken into account and there was nothing in them that conflicted with particular points of the evidence. Pinard J. agreed with the CSC’s assertion that the fact a decision does not allow a party’s claim does not necessarily mean that it did not take the representations the latter may have made into account. In this case, it was clear that the prison authorities took the representations made by the applicant into account, both in the final decision at issue and in the earlier decisions to which it refers. The application for judicial review was dismissed.
|
TOP