| M's application to the court sought orders in the nature of certiorari and mandamus quashing the decision of the National SHU Review Committee to transfer him from the Edmonton Institution to the SHU, and directing the CSC to allow M to be heard, to present evidence, to examine witnesses and to be represented by counsel in any proceeding looking into the conduct of M while incarcerated at the Edmonton Institution. M was transferred to the SHU after it was determined that he was a "particularly dangerous inmate" on the basis of his implication in the stabbing of two other inmates at the Edmonton Institution. M was served with a notice of Recommendation for Transfer that stated the reason for the recommendation, and provided with a progress summary report. M was advised of his right of reply, and he responded by filing a statutory declaration dated March 18, 1984, in which he denied the allegation being relied upon in the recommendation for his transfer. M's response was sent to the National SHU Review Committee. The Review Committee considered M's response in addition to the warden's recommendation and authorized the transfer. M was notified of the decision and requested that the committee reconsider their decision. The Committee responded by meeting with M and by giving him an opportunity to make representations, but they were not persuaded to change their decision. Evidently, a further review of M's file indicated that additional information consisting of the reports concerning an escape plot and the drug trade at the Edmonton Institution had been considered by the Review Committee and had not been brought to M's attention. Copies of these reports were later sent to M and he was invited to comment on them. By letter, M denied the allegations contained in the two reports. This letter was considered by the committee, but in the end, they were of the opinion that M met the criteria for placement in the SHU. The issue, as argued by counsel for M, was whether in these circumstances the duty to act fairly required an oral hearing where M would be represented by counsel and have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence? |
|
In dismissing the application, Jerome A.C.J. held that there was no requirement in either the Act or Regulations that an inmate be granted an oral hearing before the SHU Review Committee. While it was well established that prison authorities have a duty to act fairly in respect to administrative decisions concerning the transfer and classification of inmates, Jerome A.C.J. was not satisfied that the CSC failed to discharge this duty. Even if Jerome A.C.J. were to accept the submission that the first Notification of Transfer did not provide sufficient notice, the defect was cured when the CSC later served M with further notice indicating the stabbing, along with the allegations of the escape plot and drug activity, were considered. M was given an opportunity to respond to each of the notices received and to the progress summary. The committee considered M's comments in reaching their decision. On the facts, Jerome A.C.J. was not persuaded that the CSC failed to treat M fairly.
|
TOP