|
P, in seeking judicial review, asked the Federal Court that his administrative segregation be terminated and that the decision to transfer him to the maximum security Archambault Institution be quashed. P was admitted into the " kitchen " program at the Federal Training Centre. This program entailed that P was taken on for a period of 24 months, with the understanding that he would have to expect close supervision and continue to be subject to transfer to an appropriate institution if his performance was considered unsatisfactory. While at the medium security Federal Training Centre, P's work performance was considered very disappointing and his institutional behavior was considered unsatisfactory, including as it did a disciplinary record of three offences-one of which involving the consumption of drugs. As a result, P was sent, on November 15 1988, a notice of recommendation for transfer to the Cowansville Institution, another medium security penitentiary. The next day, P also received a "Progress Summary" with the recommendation from the case management team that he be transferred to the Cowansville Institution. On November 16 1988, P wrote to the Regional Director expressing his reasons in opposition to the proposed transfer to Cowansville. The Regional Selection Board was not informed of this letter prior to its decision of November 22, 1988, to transfer P to the maximum security Archambault Institution. This decision was communicated to P on November 24, 1988. Since the proposed transfer now involved an increase in security levels, P was placed into administrative segregation pending the actual transfer. The government filed with the Court a copy of a letter addressed to P dated December 6, 1988, notifying him of the proposed transfer to Archambault. Appended to the letter was a copy of P's letter, dated November 16, 1988, with his reasons in opposition to the proposed transfer to Cowansville. The issues before the Court: 1) Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus in regards to P's placement in administrative segregation? 2) Did prison authorities violate the principles of procedural fairness? 3) Is the failure to implement a CD to the letter fatal to a transfer decision?
|
| In
allowing the application in part, Pinard J. immediately pointed out, with
respect to the validity of the confinement of an inmate in administrative
segregation, that the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction to issue
a writ of habeas corpus for the reintegration of an inmate into the general
prison population. It has been acknowledged that the provincial superior
courts have jurisdiction to issue certiorari ancillary to habeas corpus,
notwithstanding the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Federal Court
of Canada in matters of certiorari under s18
of the Federal Court Act. However, the converse has not been acknowledged.
The Federal Court of Canada therefore lacks jurisdiction to issue writ
of habeas corpus ancillary to a writ of certiorari that it does have exclusive
jurisdiction to issue under s18.
It is well established that while rule 334 authorizes the Federal Court
to issue a writ of habeas corpus testificandum, it nevertheless lacks
jurisdiction or competence to issue a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum,
except with regard to a member of the Canadian Armed Forces serving abroad
under s19(5) of the Federal Court Act. The duty to act fairly was breached
in this case since P was invited to offer his views on a transfer other
than the one that was adopted. P was therefore misled, as he was not given
an opportunity to present his views on the transfer that actually took
place. The failure to implement the Commissioner's Directive to the letter
is not fatal, since the Commissioner's authority to issue directives does
not derive from the Act but simply from his administrative capacity. However,
it is important to ensure that there is no breach of the duty to act fairly.
The decision to transfer P to Archambault was therefore quashed, subject
to the right of the responsible administrative authority, if it deems
appropriate, to decide de novo on P's transfer thereafter, however, giving
P the appropriate prior notice. |
TOP