| This was an application for judicial review of a decision by the CSC to "involuntarily transfer" the applicant M. In February of 1987, M became an inmate of the minimum security Ferndale Institution. On March 31st, 1987 he began a program of "Unescorted Temporary Absences". He successfully completed 12 absences. On the 13th grant, he was required to return to Ferndale by a certain time on July 4, 1987. On that date, M realized that he would not be able to return to Ferndale by the required time. He voluntarily arranged for the Vancouver Police to pick him up and that was done on the afternoon of July 4. M remained in custody at the Vancouver City Police lockup until July 6, 1987. On that day he was taken to the medium security Matsqui Institution. At Matsqui, M was placed in administrative segregation. As of August 4th, 1987, he was still in segregation at Matsqui. M made several requests that he be returned to Ferndale.
The issue before the court: Was M treated according to the principles of procedural fairness?
|
|
In allowing the application, Collier J. asserted that the material shows that M had never been given a satisfactory reason why he was taken to Matsqui, and why he remained there. Nor, has he, as a result, had an opportunity to meet the reasons for his "transfer". There was some argument advanced on behalf of the CSC that this was not really a true transfer; nor, was it, in any event, an involuntary transfer. A number of the documents prepared on behalf of the CSC, and annexed to the M's affidavit, refer to his "transfer to Matsqui Institution" or his "transfer back to Ferndale Institution". The CSC had therefore treated what occurred as a transfer. It was unclear, from the materials before the court, just how that transfer was affected. The Superintendent at Ferndale stated that when a prisoner is unlawfully at large, as M apparently (technically) was, he is, as a matter of practice, immediately taken to a higher-level security institution. In the particular circumstances of this case, Collier J. asserted that what occurred was an involuntary transfer. Furthermore, there is a requirement of fairness when decisions are taken to transfer prisoners within the prison system. On the facts before the court, M had not been given adequate notice of what was being alleged against him. Nor, had he been given a fair opportunity to answer. As a result, the decision removing or transferring the applicant from Ferndale to Matsqui was quashed. The applicant also sought mandamus compelling the CSC to return him to Ferndale. For the reasons given by Strayer, J. in the Jamieson case, Collier J. refused an order in the nature of mandamus.
|
TOP