| In allowing the application, Pinard J. found the disciplinary court to have wrongly attributed a legislative effect to the CD by concluding that compliance with the two-day limit set out in the CD mandatory, and to have failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not considering whether the failure to comply with the two-day limit prejudiced the inmate. It is well established that the Commissioner's Directives are clearly of an administrative, not legislative, nature. Further, Pinard J. held that if the disciplinary court had looked into whether the failure to comply with the time limit set out had prevented the inmate from preparing a full answer and defence, it would have found that there was no such prejudice. The record revealed that the Notice was given to the inmate by the chairperson of the disciplinary court when the inmate appeared for the first time and pleaded not guilty to the offence charged. The hearing into the matter did not start until almost a month later. At that hearing the inmate was represented by a lawyer who, considering his submissions to the disciplinary court, was very familiar with the case. Accordingly, Pinard J. set aside the disciplinary court's decision and referred the case back to the disciplinary court to be reconsidered and decided on the premise that the date on which the offence report was delivered to the inmate did not prejudice his full answer and defence before that court. |
TOP