|
This was an application for certiorari to quash the CSC’s decision denying K’s request for voluntary transfer from William Head Institution (medium security) to Ferndale Institution (minimum security), and mandamus requiring that K’s transfer be executed. K’s request was based on the demands of his university program. According to K, his faculty advisor suggested that he should find a way to get on campus in order to use the labs, and it seemed that the reduced level of security at Ferndale would have eventually allow him to attend courses and use the facilities on campus at Simon Fraser University. K’s Case Management Team recommended that his transfer application be denied on the grounds that K was appropriately classified as a medium-security inmate and because K’s primary community support was located on Vancouver Island, close to William Head. On the basis of this recommendation, the CSC denied K’s request. K argued that the reasons given for non-support of his application were erroneous, without foundation or speculative, and contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the common law duty to act fairly and the statutory provisions pertaining to inmate transfers.
|
|
In dismissing K’s application, Denault J. asserted that it is well established that transfer decisions are administrative in nature and should not be interfered with unless the decision-maker has clearly breached his duty to act fairly or a serious injustice has been committed. The evidence before the Court revealed that the CSC complied with the procedural requirements of notifying the applicant of its decision and providing him with the written reasons for that decision. K was also advised of his right to appeal the CSC’s ruling through the inmate grievance process. Denault J. went further to suggest that in decisions involving the involuntary transfer of an inmate, there is a further requirement that the inmate be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him. However, in cases involving an application for voluntary transfer made by an inmate himself, there is no such procedural requirement. The CSC is required to consider the inmate’s Progress Summary Report prior to making a decision regarding a transfer application. In this case, the evidence indicated that this requirement was fulfilled. Denault J. reviewed the governing sections of the Regulations, examined the manner in which they were applied to the facts in this case, and held that the Court was unable to conclude that the CSC’s decision was in any way erroneous, speculative or without foundation. In fact, the CSC’s ruling was consistent with both its statutory and common law duties. With respect to K’s application for mandamus, Denault J. held that mandamus is a remedy granted to compel the performance of an imperative public duty. If the duty involves the exercise of discretion, mandamus cannot compel a particular result. Since the decision to transfer contains a discretionary element, mandamus is not an available remedy.
|
TOP