|
The applicant P sought judicial review of the warden’s decision to approve
his involuntary transfer from a minimum to a medium security institution.
The decision to transfer was based on several reports indicating that
P was planning to escape and pull off “ a big job.” On receipt of a Notice
of Recommendation for Involuntary Transfer, the CSC reassessed P’s security
classification. In addition to the reports, it was noted that P had been
unlawfully at large on two separate occasions and that he also once escaped
while on escorted temporary absence, only to return to the penitentiary
of his own accord. The CSC acknowledged that P was not a violent man,
all of his offences being property crimes. In light of this information,
the CSC raised his security classification from minimum security to medium
security and transferred him to a medium-security institution. The argument
was that the probability of P’s escape was no longer acceptable in a minimum-security
institution. P challenged the transfer arguing that it was unfounded in
law, particularly since the decision contradicted the provisions setting
out the requirements for an inmate’s classification as minimum security
found in s18(c)(i) and (ii) of the Regulations. |
|
In dismissing the application, Rouleau J. articulated that the French
version of s18 of the Regulations differs from the English version. According
to the English version, in order to be classified as minimum security,
an inmate must meet the dual requirements of paragraphs 18(c)(i) and (ii)
because Parliament used the word “and.” The French version, by using the
word “soit” [or], requires that an inmate meet just one of the criteria
set out in s18(c) to be classified as minimum security. The two versions
are irreconcilable and Rouleau J. held that Parliament’s intent is better
conveyed by the English text. The foremost goal of the CSC is to protect
the public. It is therefore reasonable that an inmate meet the greatest
number of criteria possible in order to be classified as minimum security,
and that his classification be raised a soon as he no longer lives up
to one of those criteria. In applying this statutory interpretation to
the facts, Rouleau J. found that there was enough to conclude that P was
actively seeking to escape and therefore did not merit continued minimum-security
classification. |
TOP