| H sought judicial review of a decision by the CSC to involuntarily transfer him from the medium security Matsqui Institution to the maximum-security Millhaven Institution. IPSOs at Matsqui had been involved in an investigation into a serious escape plan allegedly formulated by several inmates. Based on confidential information, the officers believed that H was involved in the plan and might have a zip gun to be used in the escape. As a result, H's cell was searched. A folded map of British Columbia and a drilled out bolt compatible with use as a zip gun were found. H was placed into administrative segregation in order to maintain the good order and discipline of the institution. H was later notified that he had been recommended for involuntary transfer because of the finding of the zip gun and map in his cell and because of security information implicating him. The issues before the court: 1) Whether or not a breach of the duty to act fairly occurred? 2) Specifically, was H treated unfairly when a) s.20 of the applicable CD was not sufficiently taken into consideration, and b) the " Involuntary Transfer Check List" was not fully completed as prescribed by the "Instructions"? |
| In dismissing the application, Denault J. was convinced that there was no breach of the duty to act fairly. It had been properly demonstrated that H was adequately informed and that, on two occasions, he exercised his right to submit written submissions. Furthermore, these were taken into consideration by the prison authorities. As for the "Involuntary Transfer Check List," Denault J. asserted that it was true that that checklist had not been fully completed. However, the listed questions unanswered should have been answered in a manner favourable to the prison authorities according to the evidence. The failure of the authorities to "fully complete" the form did not amount to a breach of the duty to act fairly. |
TOP
|