Quinta v. Canada
(Attorney General)

[2000] F.C.J. No.1020 (F.C.T.D.), 2000 CanLII 15763 (F.C.)

     Q applied to the Court for an interlocutory injunction seeking to prevent his transfer form a medium to a maximum-security institution until there was a ruling on the application for judicial review. The issue before the Court concerned the tripartite test set out for such an application - namely whether the plaintiff has been able to establish the existence of a serious question for consideration, that irreparable harm could be done to him and finally, that the balance of convenience is in his favor. Q argued that the circumstances did not justify a transfer since his statutory release date was just over two months away from the date in time the decision to transfer was made. Further, the notice to transfer indicated that although the Case Management Team recommended a transfer, the unit manager and Preventive Security Officer dissented.
     In dismissing this application, Denault J. held that Q had not established that the decision to transfer was made illegally or that it was unreasonable. On the contrary, it must be assumed to be valid. So far as the decision to transfer Q because of his behavior compromising the security of the institution was concerned, although some of those involved expressed dissents, the Court saw no serious question for decision that could justify an alteration. There may have been some question as to the advisability of transferring, for a few weeks, an inmate who officially was to be released in the very near future but the Court did not have to deal with that question since it was a matter for the prison authorities. In short, the Court was not persuaded that there was a serious question for decision that required its intervention. Nor was the Court persuaded that G would suffer irreparable harm as the result of his transfer.
TOP